Police Launch Drones Over LA 496
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that law enforcement officials have launched a new form of drone aircraft to patrol the skies above Los Angeles. From the article: 'Police say the drone, called the SkySeer, will be able to accomplish tasks too dangerous for officers and free up helicopters for other missions. "This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone," said Commander Sid Heal, head of the Technology Exploration Project of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "The ideal outcome for us is when this technology becomes instrumental in saving lives."'"
Oh cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh cool! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, Scratch previous contents of needing guns... Just get a laptop with stumbler... find the 'WHY-FLY' connection (he-he, I'm soooo Punny...
Could bring NEW meaning to the terms "CRASHING A SERVER"...
Re:Oh cool! (Score:3, Informative)
Define "Maximum effective range". However, since you don't know about the increased range availability from shotgun sabot rounds, I would tend to think you most likely don't live in a firearms-friendly location.
I think you missed the part about "point target accuracy" - which is 75 meters. Area target accuracy ist about 150 meters. The 300 meters "maximum effective range" means that it will still be able to injure a perso
Or it could be used (Score:5, Funny)
Or it could be used to follow White Broncos
Re:Or it could be used (Score:4, Funny)
"Great news chief, this town is free of anal sex!"
Re:Or it could be used (Score:5, Insightful)
Drones following Drones. Kafka would be proud.
Re:Or it could be used (Score:5, Funny)
Did LA grow a big forest in the middle of it that I'm not aware of?
Re:Or it could be used (Score:5, Funny)
Duh. If you are a hiker, in LA, you are really lost. QED.
john
Re:Or it could be used (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover, as others have pointed out, Griffith Park [wikipedia.org] is the second largest urban park in the the country at 4210 acres. It is definitely large enough to get lost in, especially in the dark if you don't know the trails.
I just get a little annoyed when people continually badmouth my town. East coasters tend to think LA is just like New York except with snotty movie stars. It's not - West-Coast big cities are very different from East Coast ones in that they are much more spread out instead of vertical and are usually completely surrounded by hundreds of miles of wilderness. Drive 90 minutes in any direction from LA and you are pretty much in the middle of nowhere.
It's one of the few cities anywhere where you can wake up on an April morning and decide that day if you're going to spend the day surfing/sunbathing at the beach
Re:Or it could be used (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Driving 90 minutes in LA means traffic is going nowhere while driving 90 minutes in NYC means there is just no parking space.
Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that depends on which citizens and what is the process to keep tabs on their movements. Do they need a warrant and/or probable cause? Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto? In whose hands will the tool be? The "Protect & Serve" type of police or the "Shoot first and ask questions later" kind? Any tool is bad in the wrong hands.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2)
Don't worry, if they are they won't be for long.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, 'they' refers to the executive branch of the government. Police, FBI, and the various intelligence agencies could all potentially use this tool to collect unauthorized information.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Authorized on unauthorized by whom? For the government, all information that is not securely encrypted, it is by definition authorized. If it is encrypted, the sender and recipients thereof are by definition suspects of a crime and need to be investigated.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit, this falls back on your warrant and/or probably cause. But consider the following scenario: A man of middle-eastern descent walks home from work and takes a shortcut through the railyard. Now, this is illegal. We all know that. He's doing it because it saves him a 20 minute walk--no excuse, admittedly. A policeman spots him doing this. What would probably happen? The cop would watch what he does and at some point during his walk home, would pull over and ask him a few questions and say something to the effect of "Stop doing that." Maybe even give him a ticket for trespassing or something.
Same scenario, but this time he's spotted by our "eye in the sky" drone. The operator can't talk to the guy, obviously, but the guy is of middle-eastern descent so he could be a terrorist and, after all, a terrorist could do a lot of damage in a railyard. Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators. Now, of course, we can't just go up to this guy, so we'd better find out more about him, talk to his employer, neighbors, etc. All on the QT, of course, we can't let him know we're watching him.
So, of course, the man's boss is told that they're investigating this guy because he might be a terrorist. Think the boss is going to give that guy the raise he was planning on giving him? Think the neighbors are gonna let their kids play with his kids?
The difference here is that the cop-on-the-beat has some incentive to immediately find out what's going on. The guy behind the camera has nothing to do but make up wild stories.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, I'll tell the local cop on the beat, who might have missed this guy, to go check him out.
Sure, it could go down as you describe. Or not.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Middle Eastern Guy: WTF?
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
I'll break it to you gently... people make fun of President Bush every day, it's not a crime in the United States. It won't get you arrested or shot unless you pair it with some other blindingly stupid activity (run at the police waving a handgun while telling anti-Bush knock knock jokes) or make a statement that could be considered an actual threat [newsday.com] against the President. In that case, you might have a visit and a chat [secretservice.gov] with someone, but you won't be executed. Now, if you don't believe that telling jokes about the President is fine, just take a look at the TV. President Bush is constantly used as the butt of jokes, but Leno/Letterman/Stewart/etc. aren't broadcasting from undisclosed or hidden locations, are they? Making a joke about the President doesn't make you a hero, victim, or target. (BTW - You do realize the Muslims can be any race, from any place on the globe, right?) Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
What will get you into trouble is plotting to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens. In that case, telling jokes is irrelevant, the problem is the plot or attempt to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens.
In short, humor=OK, bombing=no way!
Most Americans get this.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that we're discussing the Los Angeles fucking Police Department I'd say the question answers itself.... (Rodney King, anyone? How about Rampart?)
Seriously, my "Army vet buddy" also worked as an LAPD cop. Now he's a private investigator who specializes in cases where the defense has suspicions regarding police corruption.
One such case involved a Latino who was stopped by police while he was walking down the street. The man had no priors, but vaguely fit the description (Latino) of a suspect. When the police proceeded to arrest the man, he protested that he had done nothing wrong. The cops then beat him up, forced him to kneel on the ground and shot him, point blank, several times in the legs.
Here's the funny/sick part. The police reported that the man broke and ran from the police (resisting arrest) and that they only shot him in the legs to stop him from fleeing. Furthermore, they claimed he was physically violent when they tried to cuff him at that point, so they had to "subdue" him. The guy was screwed, yes?
No. My PI and ex-cop friend was working for the defense attorney, and he noticed that the angle of the gunshot wounds had an extremely steep downward angle. It didn't fit the police report of the incident
From his hospital bed, the man practically cried, "Why, oh why did they have to shoot me so many times?"
To which my friend explained to him, "Simple, mister: YOU DIDN'T DIE. When cops shoot you at point blank range like that, you're supposed to die. So when they kept shooting you and you kept *not dying* you pissed them off. Don't you know better than to piss off an LAPD cop?" My friend was, of course, joking.
To this day, my PI / Army vet buddy never runs out of work.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Some tools are always tools of tyranny. 24 hour survellience of public spaces - despite the arguably utilitarian aspects - it antithetical to a free society. I believe the parent is simply pointing out this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But tell me that video isn't going to get on the Internet.
Why should a drone be peeking in my backyard? To make sure that I'm not doing anything illegal? But, at least the last time I checked, I was innocent until proven guilty. It's the same idea. Would it be okay for the police to enter and search your house if they didn't bash down your door and tear things up? Suppose they were nice and polite and put everything back the way they found it. Would it still be okay? After all, you're not inconvenienced...
Let me give you a fun example: I used to drive a Jeep. I hate having a top on my car, so I often leave the top down. I've come back to my Jeep and found all sorts of entertaining things stuck in there (eg porno magazines). Once, I found a bunch of marijuana joints. I assume that some kids had them and were afraid of getting caught with them, so they stuck them in my Jeep figuring they'd come back later and pick them up.
I've been pulled over by the police. They've asked to search my vehicle and I refuse. Why? Because I don't know what some people might have hidden in the vehicle and I don't want to be responsible for anything that the cops might find. One time I had a cop who tried to tell me that my attitude was "suspicious," that was "probable cause" for him to search my vehicle, and I should just make life easier on myself and cooperate because if I made him go through the hassle, he'd have me thrown in jail for sure. After all, why should I decline a search? I have nothing to hide, do I?
I told him he had to get his captain down here. The captain came down, listened to my story, and agreed with me. The vehicle is open, anything could be in there, and declining a search does not constitute probable cause.
These rules exist to protect all of us.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with "being ashamed", and everything to do with: A) Obeying local decency laws; and B) Respecting your neighbors, who may not want to see you buck-nekkid. Geez, what is SO hard to understand about that? Even beautiful people who aren't the slightest bit "ashamed" of their bodies still need to respect the law in the matter, and respect their neighbors. It's part of living in a civilized world with other families in close proximity, if you want them to respect your rights and wishes then you should respect theirs.
I completely agree with you on this, so no rant needed. Though I would like to add in support of your argument, why should we be treated like criminals if we've done nothing wrong?
OH NOES, DON'T INCONVENIENCE THE PO-LICE! Spare me. Last I heard, the police were public servents, whose job is generally to protect and serve the public, ie. the taxpayers, who pay their wages. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for honest, wanna-do-the-right-thing cops... but also utmost contempt for those who abuse their power. Make no mistake, a police officer IS in a position of power, and like all such positions that power can be -- and unfortunately often is -- abused. That is why we, the people for whom the police work, must ensure that the proper checks and balances remain in place. It's also why many voice concern about aerial spy drones over civilian population areas. And rightly so.
NO. The government's job is NOT to "keep you and me safe". It's to protect our freedoms and, most importantly, allow us to live our lives as we wish. There is a significant difference, try to wrap your brain around that difference. We can engage in an email discussion if you wish, but that difference is critical. Here's another hint: It's not the government's job to keep us bodily free from harm, it's the gov't's job to keep us free from oppression and tyranny. Physical safety is NOWHERE guaranteed in the Constitution, nor should it be expected. With that clear lack of expectation, it falls on each of us individually to protect ourselves; the police are not superhuman, they cannot be everywhere at once, nor instantly know the law-abiding citizens from the criminals -- THAT determination falls on our court systems. But this is getting off into a whole different rant; I digress.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
The hassle was caused by the police officer, who was probably looking for drugs. While I can't say whether the grandparent poster looked suspicious, he was right to refuse the search.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypothetically, if all our laws were just, and such 'protective systems' were only used to actually protect, then yes, people doing 'nothing wrong' would have nothing to worry about. But our laws are not just. Each day, the western world becomes less democratic and free, and more totalitarian. The separation of powers ( parliament and courts )
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait for the next thing. The Democrats are about to treat environmentalism like a religion in the same way Bush has been using jesus; if they can score enough votes next election... watch their campain for this.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Drones on the other hand are much less expensive than helicoptors and in many cases are safer. This means that for the cost of o
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
"Drones" are pretty much invisible. There's no accountability, because y
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure it should. It's not the "removing the human" element, it's the "adding the machine" element. It's the "law enforcement database" thing, the "CCTV" thing, all over again. When you have an automated information-collection system, you have FAR, FAR more potential for abuse. A view which has been confirmed time and time again.
The British government is getting a lot of flack lately, for their own CCTV system, as people say the police are using it to prosecute trivial infractions, while serious crimes continue unabaited. Video after video gets released of someone getting repeated beaten and/or stabbed under the watchful eye of CCTV cameras, and perhaps a half hour elapses before any officers arrive. Not to mention repeated misidentification through the CCTV system, leading to innocent people being arrested, shot, etc.
Up until the modern era, it wasn't that you had privacy, it was that it was prohibitively expensive/difficult for police to piece together your every move, as they can now at trivial cost. At least with a police helicopter, you know they aren't going to go through the trouble of hovering over private homes, waiting for trivial laws to be broken.
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3)
Personally, I'd rather just take my chances a
Re:Pointing out the obvious (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. There is a certain infrastructure that have been built around the notion of a modern society, and as citizens, we are, for all practical purposes, required to use it. What other practical options do you have, for example, than setting your weekly trash out for collection by a specialized service? By default, then, you are required
1984? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're already screwed, but you don't have anything to worry about unless you have something to hide. You don't have something to hide do you citizen?
Dropping the paranoia. I've been into a surveilance center in a major city and, as you would expect, half the time the people working there are too busy checking out the hot women walking about to notice any crimes...
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984? (Score:3, Funny)
Women have no interest in checking me out. Putting a propeller on my head wouldn't change that fact.
Re:1984? (Score:2)
Of course not! Who do you think am I? An anomymous coward?
Re:Maybe you ought to think about this... (Score:4, Funny)
You've neve been to LA.
Anyone can be a suspect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Useful Non-Karma Whoring Link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Useful Non-Karma Whoring Link (Score:2, Funny)
We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:5, Insightful)
But we'll settle for tracking your every move.
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, it's pretty easy to tell you're being followed in public by a person. The ease of stalking/photographing/recording/spying with drones makes it a different issue altogether.
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:2)
Re:We'll ideally it even saves lives... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, my state has anti-stalking laws. And anti-harrassment laws. My guess is that the laws only apply to us citizens, though, and that the government can stalk and harrass us as it pleases, simply because it chooses to do so.
Canada, for all of its faults, looks better and better with every passing day....
Max
Combat Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll get distracted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll get distracted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They'll get distracted (Score:2)
it's good and it's bad (Score:5, Interesting)
* It frees up man power
* It saves money on paying pilots and buying more aircraft
* They can cover more are quickly plus relay constant feed back and be remotely controlled to travel certain ares faster.
There are some bad things.
* It could, theoretically, be a privacy issue as they take pictures of people's yards (I'm sure pictures will be wide lens)
* Let's say they can hover and ease drop on a building
* I'm sure taxes will come into play (howerver this may be on neutral ground if it really beneifts the residents).
Re:it's good and it's bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:it's good and it's bad (Score:2)
(now the editoral) Five years ago I would have said I trusted the government to basically do the right thing, most of the time. With Bush openly defying the constitution because he wants to, I'm not so sure anymore.
Re:it's good and it's bad (Score:3, Insightful)
should have previewed b4 posting (Score:2)
but actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
"... but will in fact be used to further re-enforce the creeping feeling that LA, and indeed America at large, is turning onto a police state where the citizens are under constant surveillance."
Umm, no thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
At least someone is asking the right questions.
I don't have a problem with private businesses using cameras to monitor their property as long as the cameras are not government sanctioned stations to monitor the public. I would hope that tapes from those business cameras would at least take a subpoena to be viewed. Where I do have a problem is when an officer seems to justify unwarranted surveillance devoid of probable cause using unmanned drones patrolling my backyard. What happened to my Constitutional rights regarding search and seizure?
And do you know how they sell this to the public?
It's for the children stupid!!! How long until this is used to collect even more information on the citizen of our US? Land of the free and home of the brave indeed...
Why nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
So I've given up on trying to convince any but my closest friends. I just don't care anymore. If they want to be this flippant about the fourth ammendment, I'll let them be. To either wake up one day to realize they lost all their rights (and its too late for them to do anything about it), or to stay asleep....either would be a horrible punishment. They deserve it; they've chosen it.
I'm not that worried about it. We are smart enough to be on the inside of it all. We're smart enough to be the ones at the top monitoring all the OTHER stupid citizens. When enough smart ones rise up who care enough to do something about it, I'll either welcome them in or join them to set it the way it should be. Its win/win either way.
Re:Why nobody cares (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a TERRIBLE position to take. If you not only fail to resist, but support this activity, you're helping to create the monster, which may very well eat you when it is finally in place. How many of Stalin's top men found themselves in the gulags they helped to create? How many Jews were indespensible cogs in helping the Nazis suppress other Jews, only to end up sharing the same fate?
Being at the top is a short-term benefit at best, while helping establish something evil is a long-term proposition. It's a case of chosing death, or selling your soul to stay alive. I really hope most people have less self-centred ideals than yours, and can better look at the big picture.
Re:Umm, no thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Umm, no thanks (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
Well its a bit like operating a helicopter of which I assume the LA police have one or two, except it is a bit easier to operate without being seen (during the day, anyway, at night I would assume that they would have to use nav lights) and might be cheaper to operate (perhaps, depends on economies of scale).
If they wind up having thousands of small, cheap UAV's in the skies over LA I would expect to see them drop out of the sky from time to time and I won
Blue Thunder (Score:2)
Exactly right, this is what the movie Blue Thunder [gregdonner.org] was all about. Except instead of stealth helicopters we're now seeing unmanned drones deployed over population centers. How long until these drones become more "useful" by being armed with crowd-control features such as gas or even lethal force?
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
I don't see how it could possibly identify individuals from the sky. In fact I'm having trouble thinking what use it will be to police at all. The kneejerk response would be "anything a helicopter is good for, but cheaper"... except it only goes 30mph, and only for one hour, so forget tracking automobiles.
Think the LA MAN is spying on you??? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, get yourself a GPS Jammer [computerworld.com].
You can bweak the Man's widdow pwane!!!
At least until it crashes and kills someone. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ideally that is. At least until it crashes and kills someone.
actual pictures (Score:5, Informative)
cost effectiveness (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, (Score:2)
General Aviation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pictures (Score:4, Informative)
What was that model number (Score:2)
Is the LAPD a bunch of pansies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cue James Cameron and Chuck D (Score:2)
In the words of Hans Solo... (Score:2)
G.R.A.W. (Score:2)
Hopefully nobody will take this too literally and start base-raping the boys in blue, though. Or better yet, grab your ZEUS anti-tank missile, and take tha
This is the end of freedom (Score:2)
Kiss your remaining freedoms goodbye.
Say it like it is (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, drones are by definition dumb and sooner or later one will crash. That is not necessarily "protecting" the public, will probably hurt more people than it saves, but as long as you can argue that's the idea behind it, it will fly. Hell, the "war on terror" was supposed to protect US people, and more people died during that war than in terrorist acts before 9/11. But hey, it was the idea behind it.
boring, wake me (Score:2)
cause ya know those small children are the problem.
it's funny laugh
This was apparently a demo, OUTSIDE Los Angeles. (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060609 uav.html [aopa.org]
The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) was reportedly evaluating a 4-pound UAV for surveillance use over the sprawling L.A. Basin, which also happens to be some of the busiest airspace in the world. Members were rightly concerned about the risk of a midair collision with the small, radio-controlled aircraft.
AOPA staff promptly raised the issue with the FAA. Not only did that action make sure that a mini-UAV wouldn't be sharing L.A.'s airspace with GA pilots, it will also lead to a better policy controlling UAVs nationwide.
The FAA made it clear to the LASD that as a public operator, it would need a certificate of authorization (COA) and an experimental airworthiness certificate before it could fly a UAV, regardless of size, in the National Airspace System. (National airspace includes Class G, uncontrolled airspace.) Those are the same rules that apply to the larger UAVs being flown by the military and Department of Homeland Security.
Public and commercial operators aren't flying UAVs for "recreational purposes," so they are not permitted to fly remotely piloted aircraft under the provisions of the FAA's radio-controller modeler's advisory circular.
According to AOPA's FAA sources, the LASD reassured the agency that it will fully comply with all FAA regulations.
Obligatory Muppet Show reference: (Score:2)
Danger to aircraft! (Score:5, Interesting)
difficult to see, especially when the hover stationary at the end of runways. There
have been several crashes with loss of life in LA due to light planes hitting helos.
Perhaps since UAVs fly lower than helos, they will reduce crash danger to my son.
I'm curious if UAVs are exempt from all FAA regulations or do they require any
notification tonearby towers when they are launched?
A creepy uneasy feeling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Picture (Score:5, Funny)
New capabilities? New vulnerabilities too. (Score:3, Insightful)
New capabilities create new vulnerabilities all the time, I don't see anyone talking about what new vulnerabilities these drones open up and how they are going about protecting against them.
The first thing I think of when I hear about remotely controlled vehicles is, "how easily can the control part of 'remote control' be disrupted?" If the idea is that they can use these things against criminals - what is to stop a criminal from buying a pre-made unit from some grey-market in the far-east, or modifying an "almost there" off the shelf transmitter that is capable of disrupting the two way communication required to operate these drones?
Depending on the specifics, one might even be able to impersonate the unit and send your own video feed to the ground-station. At the very least, I would expect that one could simply dump enough noise into the relevant frequencies to severe the link between ground-station and drone - after all the drone is tiny, it can't have too many watts of transmitting power. A smart criminal could use multiple transmitters, and reflections off of buildings and such, making it that much harder for anyone to get a triangulation on the source of the noise too.
lost hikers? in Los Angeles? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Nigger Control!"
To put it bluntly, in their words [in hushed whispers], not mine.
Do they really have such a big problem that they need all this Kafkaesque technology? Or are they really just a bunch of paranoid psychopathic cowboys with too much money to spend on death machines?
All this weird 'us vs. them' paranoia that infects the wealthy people of Los Angeles (more than anywhere else on Earth) is getting to be rather embarrassing. Do they really believe that their maids are gardeners are going to rise up and slaughter them in the middle of the night?
Get a grip, people, and come back down to the real world.
I'm beginning to think that the entire L.A. techno-fascist police state mentality is directly related to the local Hollywood fantasy mentality. Only it is the inverted nightmare that grows out of too much fantasy, too much money, and too many drugs.
Is there any other place where people live like this? God, let's hope that it doesn't spread.
Not so fast... (Score:4, Informative)
This activity on Los Angeles' part got the attention of a certain pilot's association [aopa.org] which apparently put lots of ice [avweb.com] on the project.
So it doesn't appear to be flying anywhere above LA County anytime soon...
Dark Angel (Score:3, Informative)
FLIR and spotlamps on helicopters (Score:3, Interesting)
In Baltimore, the city routinely used video surveillance of public areas --particularly places known to be open air drug markets. The courts upheld the convictions of those caught on tape dealing in drugs.
My question to those who object to UAV surveillance: What do you think these things do that hasn't already been done? The courts have upheld the use of all these technologies. Does the placement on an unmanned aerial vehicle make any difference?
Re:Pretty Cool... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pretty Cool... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pretty Cool... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about hacking the control system and taking it where the police doesn't want it to go? It would be sort of like the hackers making a PC Zombie, only this one flies.
In the article: "There must have been some sort of communication interference," said De La Torre as he inspected the multicolored wires and circuitry spilling out of his damaged drone.
Actually it was a hacker who made the $25K toy airplane crash into the empty
Re:Pretty Cool... (Score:3, Insightful)
Weren't there aerial drones in the short lived show "Dark Angel"?
Re:Reminds me of Virtual Light (Score:2)
Actually I'm waiting for the Golden Gate to be closed for traffic...