E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Mesa County Sheriff's Office Unmanned Aircraft Program Manager Benjamin Miller talks about the Draganflyer X6 remote-controlled miniature helicopter with Code Pink for Peace member Joan Stallard after a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, March 20, in Washington, DC. Miller testified before the committee during a hearing titled, 'The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations.'
It was very clear Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on drones that senators in both parties are worried about the threat to Americans’ privacy posed by the personal, commercial and law enforcement use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Senators expressed deep concerns about the spreading use of a technology that is rapidly evolving and comes at a relatively affordable price tag.
But it was equally clear that they’ve only just begun to grasp the dimensions of the drone controversy, and are very far from being decided on whether a federal law is need to regulate the use of drones inside the United States -- much less what legislative approach to use.
Last year, Congress gave the Federal Aviation Administration until 2015 to devise rules to integrate drones into the national airspace system. The agency predicted last year that 30,000 drones will be traveling the skies above America in the next 20 years.
University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo and Ben Miller, the Unmanned Aircraft Program Manager for the Mesa County Sheriff, discuss privacy concerns during a Senate hearing on drone use Wednesday.
To some degree senators at Wednesday’s hearing were still caught up in marveling at the gee-whiz, technological capabilities of UAVs.
“How small can these things get?” asked Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. A drone as small as a hummingbird is being developed, replied a witness at the hearing, Amie Stepanovich, director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “The technology is increasing at an exponentially rapid rate.”
“Presumably at some point you could have one the size of a mosquito that has a battery that operates for weeks and you could have the mosquito following you around and not be aware of it,” said Franken. “God help us if an adolescent boy gets hold of one of these.”
One witness at Wednesday’s hearing, Benjamin Miller of the Mesa County, Colo., sheriff’s office, who was representing the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, brought a small two-pound UAV with him to the hearing and assured committee members that his department was using its UAVs for traditional law enforcement functions. His office used a UAV last May to search for a missing woman, saving much time by searching large areas at low cost.
And cost is a major factor in domestic law enforcement drone use: “drones drive down the cost of aerial surveillance to worrisome levels,” said University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, adding that he could imagine drones flying around with chemical sensors in order to detect drug trafficking.
Miller estimated that “unmanned aircraft can complete 30 percent of the missions of manned aircraft for two percent of the cost.” He assured Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that domestic law enforcement agencies would “absolutely not” seek to arm UAVs with lethal weapons. Miller also testified that hours and hours of tracking a criminal suspect was “not affordable” and that need for “persistent surveillance” – whether using an airplane or a drone -- was “relatively low.”
But EPIC’s Stepanovich told Leahy “persistent surveillance” was the greatest threat from domestic use of drones.
Some senators’ questions reflected a fear of an Orwellian Big Brother monitoring Americans.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he had “very deep concerns about the government collecting information on the citizenry, and with the ease and availability of drones, I think there is real concern that the day-to-day conduct of American citizens going about their business might be monitored, catalogued, and recorded the federal government.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., addresses witnesses on Capitol Hill Wednesday during a hearing on the evolving use of unmanned aircraft.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voiced similar fears: “I know what drones can do … I’ve seen drones do all kinds of things and those all kinds of things bring on great caution,” she said, alluding to her role as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
After she left the hearing Feinstein told reporters more of her worries, “You can say that you won’t permit any drone to be armed but how do you see that that (restriction) is carried out? Can a drone look into somebody’s window and photograph them in the privacy of their home?”
She added, “The technology is way ahead of our ability to know how to cope with it.”
Asked whether she supported EPIC’s call for requiring a warrant whenever a domestic law enforcement agency uses a UAV for surveillance, she said, “It all depends. If it’s surveillance, yes. If it’s traffic guidance, that kind of thing, for which a drone, much like a helicopter, can be very useful, we have to think this thing out. I don’t really want to commit myself because I don’t really know at this stage.”
While law enforcement agencies can get permission from FAA to use drones, private-sector commercial operators for now are limited to experimental uses for tests, demonstrations and training.
But Michael Toscano, the president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), told the committee that drones are poised to be one of America’s growth industries, with 70,000 new jobs, just as soon as federal regulations are set in the next few years.
Asked after the hearing about the possibility that Congress might crimp this commercial development, Toscano said, “I think you’ll find that we’ll be able to come to a meeting of the minds” to allow commercial use of drones while not violating privacy rights.
He said that “Congress shouldn’t knee-jerk into passing legislation that would be prohibitive” and should allow the continued development of unmanned air systems.
But Stepanovich said after the hearing that “we hope to see (legislative) action, if not in this term of Congress, then definitely prior to 2015 when the amount of drones in the U.S. is expected to increase pursuant to the FAA regulations.”
She also noted that a pending court challenge might affect the legal landscape for drone use.
The Customs and Border Protection agency, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, lends out its Predator drones to local law enforcement agencies to conduct operations unrelated to the border control mission. In North Dakota in 2011, a man was accused of stealing cattle. Police called in a Predator drone which flew over his property and helped police find and arrest him. He is now challenging the use of the drone in federal court as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The police in that case did not seek a warrant before using the drone, Stepanovich said.
In 1989 the Supreme Court upheld police use of a helicopter flying 400 feet above a person’s property to see marijuana growing in a greenhouse. Since the helicopter was in navigable airspace, where any member of the public could have flown, the justices ruled that a search warrant was not required.
If a police helicopter can observe you or your house from 400 feet, what limits should there be on a drone?
The Congressional Research Service said in a report last year the crucial question is “whether drones have the potential to be significantly more invasive than traditional surveillance technologies such as manned aircraft or low-powered cameras — technologies that have been upheld in previous cases.”
Leave a Comment:
How will we be able to tell a good drone from a potentially dangerous drone?
Good lord, there may be hope. Politicians actually worrying about privacy rights? I thought those rights went out the window after 9/11 and all the Patriot Act B.S...
You can't because they all have that potential.
It's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to hijack a drone's signal. This could be as harmless as a neighbor wanting to spy on the cutie next door or as dangerous as a terrorist or potential mass murderer looking for targets.
Mechanical malfunctions happen all the time. Imagine the destruction if one of the large ones crash into someone's house or car or school or children's playground? Or a bird collides with one (they run into airplanes all the time.)
really?
These lawmakers are the ones who have re-authorized the PATIORT Act over and again. In Millions of Americans bedrooms, pig brothers have been watching you and your wife/your mistress sleep together and/or do other things.
I am deeply concerned about what our elected may do......it could very easily come down to how much lobbying is done and how much money is handed out.Consider..the actual increase in these drones in this country would be a huge boost to the economics of the makers of those things. Our governmnet today is at a standstill unless money is handed out to them all. These are elected people who are suppose to be responsible to us..the voters..but I have seen nothing coming form any politican..or any part of our government on this and many issues that do concern we the people of this nation. Even today..NRA lobbyist and many others are handing out funds to get members of congress to do what they want done..and guess what..they are getting it. The question we voters should be asking ourselves..are we voters getting what we are paying for ? I think not.
Ivan, you might be onto something. The translation of what the politicians are saying could be "Lobbyist, get ready to break out your check books!"
Homeland Security asks Congress for $141 per person/per night to keep someone detained.A private, for-profit deportation camp will warehouse the detainee for between $40-$98 a night. Homeland Security keeps the leftover and adds it to their budget, along with the sales of detainees' 'forfeited civil assets'--the belongings and possessions of those going into a camp are seized and sold at government auctions.
Private deportation camps cut corners so they can save money, which is in turn poured out to lobbyists, who wine and dine Congressmen into passing more laws that will keep the money coming (like the NDAA for FY2012). This is one of the reasons why we'll never see the end of the 'illegal' problem-- there are too many people making too much money off the entire mess. And as for the NDAA--there's too much money to be had in indefinite detention.
For the story behind that, see the below post at 2.1.
On the positive side, we may de facto legalize drugs by making it so easy to import them via drones. I realize that the amounts may be a kilo at a time or less, but if drones become cheap enough....
Remote control aircraft and, both rotary wing and fixed have been around for many years. Small cameras and transmitters have also been installed for years. NOW it's a problem?
Well, So much for illegal search and seizures. If I can prevent someone from entering my property with No Trespassing signs. How Can they then do fly overs and deem it legal?
Just saying here! This administration has already stated that If they deemed it a threat without due process they could fire armed drones on citizens.
This will be interesting to watch as more of our liberties are being threatened.
thats nothing, wait till verizon has those nice patented DVRs in your house.with depth, image, audio, and thermal sensors.the future is bleak indeed my freinds.
It must be nice to be Pigotry and sit around all day on your useless assss and post tripe while living off the government teat.
Like you !
Lobbyists...sometimes just a form of legal political bribery to our politicians, and I did say sometimes
I can imagine something and I believe it will happen and that is a mid-air collision with a small private aircraft. Or worse a large commercial airliner if a drone strays too close to an airport.
Hey, if the Gov and Supreme Court and the Police vote to allow these things then it should also allow us - the citizens of this country that they all work for - to have all the drones we want following them around 24/7 and spying on them!
This whole thing is stupid. Much ado about nothing. Constitutional law even says the government has the right to put down any threat to the nation or its people. If drones did not exist, tanks, planes etc. could be used. Quit letting these idiots scare you.
Next thing will be all drones will have to be registered, and no one can have more 30 drones apiece, and I can't sell my drone to another drone, or i mean person without getting a drone background check, course I could just sell my drone on the street corner....remember its not the drones that kill people, its the drone flying it...
First disarm the people; NUMBER ONE PRIORITY and destroy the 2nd Amendment; than connect all the data bases; than connect all the camera's and than the drones
Welcome to 1984 and the liberal version of tyranny
In a congressional hearing aired on C-SPAN, either a senator or House member asked if millions of homes have been put under surveillance; the answer by a federal official was troubling. He said there has not been deliberate efforts to put millions of homes under surveillance, but it can still be a fact - by accident!!
.
so by accident, pig brothers have been watching you and your wife/mistress in the bedroom doing this/that thing.
Pigotry... what?
Our government has accidentally put so many homes under surveillance...that's what, ProFreedom-5130956.
I think it would be prudent to follow the money. Who has the most to gain from 20,000 drones flying around the US? MIC Military Industrial Complex
Oh, the dems have authorized spying on citizens private lives 'accidentally' -yeah, accidentally, sure. Thanks for clarifying that.
ProFreedom (#1.23)...you are an amateur (not a pro), because the whole thing started with Bush's PATRIOT Act.
The congressional hearing I mentioned in previous posts is the same hearing in this news.
Pig Brothers may not have stared at you and your wife/husband, these pig brothers may have just stared at your younger daughters or sons, depending on the orientation of these pig brothers.
Pigotry... and who is in office today, not blocking this thing eh? Yep, it is amatuer hour here on the 'vine.
That last one really lost me...
Don't be afraid of UAVs (drones), rather keep up on what is happening with uavs. Join UAV Watch (forum):
They've been doing flyovers in helicopters for years legally. Now you're complaining? Is it the big scary 'drone' word they use because 'flying robot' wasn't scary enough?
New tech doesn't give police the right to forget peoples rights. Whether you use a long extension pole to stick a camera over a fence, or fly it over the fence using a RC helicopter, its the same violation. Changing tech doesn't change rights.
All our privacy is being abused constantly, and the courts everywhere have sat back and done nothing. What are you good for if you don't protect the peoples rights?. That's the top courts job. And law makers for not making laws against it. What are these people paid for? They certainly aren't earning it.
'Changing tech doesn't change rights.'
George Carlin did a sketch a while back on rights that think bears repeating here. Right aren't rights, they are a set of temporary privileges that can be revoked at any time. And most of the changing of rights has to do with (at least in his country) what the people will put up with.
Twenty years ago it would have been unthinkable to make a recent amputee active-serving military serviceman take off his prosthetic legs so airport security could check them for contraband. Yet it happens today.
Twenty years ago the thought of monitoring people's heart rate and respiration and pulse as they go through the airport to predict who is likely to cause trouble (so you can prevent them from getting on a plane)would have been unthinkable; you can't detain someone under suspicion of a crime if you have no concrete evidence that they are or have committed one. Yet today Homeland Security is testing a biophysical scanning system 'at an undisclosed location in the Northeast' that picks up people with a fast pulse, excessive perspiration, shifting eyes,and rapid breathing as possible troublemakers and potential criminals. It reportedly has a 70% success rate in detecting those who are acting in a suspicious manner.
Twenty years ago holding someone in jail even after a court has cleared them of charges would have been unthinkable-- much less a veteran. Yet it happens today-- an honorably-discharged veteran was picked up on suspicion of being illegal and even though he proved he was a citizen in Immigration court (after a year in detention), he was still held for five more months. Another judge had to order him released.
Twenty years ago I learned the Miranda warning by heart in my law class at school knowing that its stipulations and rights applied to me. Now I know better. Homeland Security detained me as undocumented when they did a routine record search and found out my immigration file was missing my adoption paper-- and I could't give them a copy because I had never been told I was adopted before my parents passed away in a car accident.
Because USCIS losing a paper wasn't a crime, because not knowing I'd been adopted wasn't a crime, there was no reason to arrest me, nothing they could charge me with. I was civilly detained--which meant no right to a judge, hearing, legal representation, no right to stay silent, no right to ask that a female guard perform strip searches and body cavity searches rather than a male, and I was simply told I'd remain in deportation until I gave them a copy of the missing paper. It took me three years. When I finally found the paper and was released, it was with the stipulation that although my citizenship was being given back to me, should my name come up in front of Homeland Security again, they could revoke my citizenship and put me back in deportation.
So yes, George Carlin has it right. Rights are not rights. There are no such things as God-given rights. There are no such things as human rights. There are only temporary privileges that can be revoked at any time.
Some of your story doesn't pass the raised-eyebrow test! Even if you were an illegal immigrant they could not hold you indefinitely without removal for three years! They would either have to find a country that would take you and remove you, prove that you would be a violent danger if released, or release you! Your story just doesn't add up. If it is true, you've got a heck of a lawsuit on your hands!
There were people who'd been in that camp for 5 years.
I was what is internationally considered 'stateless' at the time of my adoption. I was abandoned as an infant with no paperwork saying where I was born or who I was born to. Therefore, when Homeland Security placed me in deportation, there was nowhere to deport me to.
Yes, there are laws that say that if the detainee has no criminal record, they can be released on ankle monitoring to make sure they show up at a hearing. But there was no hearing scheduled because I wasn't illegal, just undocumented. Mom was a war bride Dad brought back from Korea after his service in the Korean War, and he split with his family over that decision-- Dad was Irish. It was just us growing up, Dad sold computers and so we moved around a lot-- three states, which is why it took so long to find the adoption paper-- I wrote letters to every courthouse in three states looking for the adoption paper. Work around the deportation camp entitled me to one letter a week.
And no, there is no lawsuit-- Homeland Security is indemnified against lawsuits if the infraction occurred during a good-faith attempt to carry out their job functions. Yes, I could try to bring one anyway, I've bee told I have a good case-- but they said if my name comes up in front of Homeland Security again for any reason they can revoke my citizenship and place me back in deportation.
Can they actually do that? I don't know. Things have gotten a lot better for immigrant detainees since I got out-- the camp I was in was shut down in President Obama's first term in office for massive violations of human rights. The cross-gender strip and body cavity searches, the unwashed underwear given out after the weekly shower, the maggot ridden food and lack of adequate sanitation all contributed to that.
This technology is getting scary. Senator Cruz is worried on how the government will use drones as am I. But I am equally concerned with how corporations and common thieves might also use this Technology. What about my employer? Will he be able to watch what I do off the clock as well. The technology is about to overwhelm us. We all worry about big brother, big sister, big cousin, and big uncle Mr. Cruz. But by you singling out Govt. alone demonstrates your naivete as to the power structure of the world. But what worries me the most, Mr. Cruz, is that your party received 1.5 million less votes in house races yet still retain the majority and not by a little. A substantial majority. Hmmmm. Somethings not right with this picture. Same thing happened in my state. It is impossible to pull that off without some crimes against the people of the United States of America.
Terminator skynet is only a few steps away...maybe 5 years before a police drone does a fly by on your street, think i'm kidding...
Yes, Mike... it's called "gerrymandering" and the 2010 elections coincided with the 2010 census. With the census, the "majority" party may redistrict their state and you can see what Mr. Cruz and the Republican party did... ensured that although the Democrats clearly represent the people, the district boundaries were engineered to ensure Republicans would retain seats in many legislatures across the country as well as in our congress which is why the Democrats have an uphill battle to overcome these legal, but totally UNAMERICAN tactics. It proves that just like with Mitt the Nitwit & Lyin Ryan that the Republican party message is NOT welcomed by the majority of Americans and that more informed people each day reject their caveman policies. BUT, since they CANNOT win elections with their party platform Republicans will STEAL the elections whenever possible. A lil FYI.
Amanda, I apologize for doubting your story. It certainly sounds like you saw some of the worst of what the system has to offer!
I highly doubt Amanda's detention story. Too much fluff and very little substance........just her saying it. I need to know more before I would believe it.
Where was this detention camp? What state and town were you supposedly randomly checked for your papers in?
Lastly, you do know that the serviceman being harraseed by TSA has been debunked already so using that example holds no weight.
Raymondville, Texas, the Willacy Processing Center. Human Rights Watch called the place 'Ritmo' because the said it reminded them of Guantanamo Bay.
I was living in New York at the time, getting ready to go to art college. There was no random stop ad search for papers, USCIS did a routine record search of my 18 year old file and discovered that my adoption paper was missing. They came to my apartment for a copy, I couldn't give them one, and I was civilly detained as illegal.
At the time I was adopted laws hadn't yet changed to make citizenship automatic on adoption. The law at the time was that an adopted child would become a citizen automatically upon turning 18 if 1) the child had no juvenile/criminal record; 2) a legal adoption had been performed; 3)the child had bee a resident of the US for a least ten years. I had report cards from 1st grade through high school, had never gotten in trouble; the only thing I was missing was the adoption paper.
What are they so worried about? A knee-jerk reaction from Congress banning something over the misuse of an inanimate object? Nah, something like that would never happen.
Drones, gps tracking, phone tapping, pat-downs at airports....ahhhh land of the free.
Unless your doing something illegal or doing the nasty in the back yard what difference should it make?
@Dems4
There is no other way to put it....that's just plain sad. :(
Please tell us all that you don't really feel that way????
So you don't mind that I climbed in through an open window, went through your drawers and read all your emails while you were out? I didn't steal anything, so what difference should it make?
You'll find that out when the law changes to make something illegal that wasn't before--or if the suddenly decide to start enforcing stupid laws that were previously unenforceable.
In my municipality there's been a law against cursing in public on the books since the late 1800's. To my knowledge it has never been enforced. How would you enforce that?
But with drones in the air, suddenly yes, that becomes enforceable.....
Volunteer to let the govt put cameras in your home, you're not doing anything wrong.
Going thru an open window is trespassing at least...breaking and entering probably. Anyone who posts anything on the internet knows that it can be hacked by now. Comparing those to a drone flying above your house is dumb.
I also don't understand the concern over drones flying in the airspace. I've got nothing to hide and I think most citizens will benefit from an eye in the sky maintaining order. It could even prevent criminal activity if people think there is a drone nearby. Law enforcement needs all the help they can get and drones would help them keep us safe. The drones are also expensive so I'm confident that they won't be used to enforce frivolous laws or misdemeanors.
An incredible statement. As long as you're doing nothing wrong, what's the problem? That's the problem. Idiots like you trusting other idiots with our lives. We have a long history of not trusting our government because they have given us reason time after time. Here's a news flash stupid. I'm not doing anything wrong and I am worried the Constituion is getting shredded.
Dems4ever.....Spoken like a true democrat, and a sheeple...What a maroon!!
"Comparing those to a drone flying above your house is dumb."
I wasn't comparing the act of spying with a drone with the act of spying through burglary. My hypothetical was meant to point out the inescapable fact that individuals value privacy whether they are involved in wrongdoing or not. I'm sorry that point passed you by.
Dems4ever,
Exactly. It is a great time to be an upright citizen.
Privacy, as we knew it, no longer exists.
Big Brother is most assuredly watching.
@ The Integral
Hoping there is a hint of sarcasm mixed in with that post.
Can a person not shot a drone down with a curcuit seeking rocket? Or a good shot gun?
frequency matching signal controls at Radio Shack, DIY kits, then fly them yourself.
Private citizens have been using "drones" for years. http://vimeo.com/61598561
http://diydrones.com/video/gopro-3-flight-over-aspen-with-the-hexa-xl-multirotor
http://diydrones.com/photo/photo/showPopout?feed_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiydrones.com%2Fphoto%2Fphoto%2FslideshowFeed%3Fxn_auth%3Dno%26promoted%3Dtrue%26mtime%3D1348129622%26useTags%3D0%26fullscreen%3Dtrue%26x%3DdcYv4GuXZ9yPuKOOB9tJbLCcxHfrJKl5%26x%3DdcYv4GuXZ9yPuKOOB9tJbLCcxHfrJKl5&autoplay=1
FPV R/C Check us out on Facebook!
Like many things, they can be an awesome tool or a dangerous weapon.
Maybe we can shoot them down, sort of like duck hunting.
That would be unambiguously illegal unless you were physically threatened by the drone. Just flying overhead does not meet the standard. You do not own the air over your property. Look it up.
Why do so many solutions start with shooting? There have never been so many people so immediately willing to shoot someone or something. Can't kill something alive, shoot at whatever is available.
just ordered my drone "buster" gun, guaranteed to be able to hit a drone at 2000 yds...now we just have to get dnr to create a season,.....Hmmmm, I wonder if we'll have to buy a federal stamp???
Domestic drone usage is ill-conceived, elitist, and end-runs our inherent Constitutional protections.
Here are two (2), very well-produced, videos that anchor my points:
Emmy Award-winning newscaster Shad Olson’s ‘The Great Drone Debate’, featuring US Senator John Thune:
Here’s a mind-blowing, well-done animated short that really captures our collective angst that if the road to perdition is paved with good intentions, then domestic drones are a superhighway to an Orwellian panoptic gulag.
For national security purposes, Americans are already subject to warrantless wiretaps of calls and emails, the warrantless GPS “tagging” of their vehicles, the domestic use of Predators or other spy-in-the-sky drones, and the Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of all our behavior through “data fusion centers.”
America’s promise has always been the power of the many to rule, instead of the one. Ungoverned drone usage, particularly domestically, gives power to the one.
Here are two (2), very well-produced, videos that anchor my points:
Emmy Award-winning newscaster Shad Olson’s ‘The Great Drone Debate’, featuring US Senator John Thune:
youtube.com/watch?v=ssoOASanKao
Here’s a mind-blowing, well-done animated short that really captures our collective angst that if the road to perdition is paved with good intentions, then domestic drones are a superhighway to an Orwellian panoptic gulag.
vimeo.com/59689349
For national security purposes, Americans are already subject to warrantless wiretaps of calls and emails, the warrantless GPS “tagging” of their vehicles, the domestic use of Predators or other spy-in-the-sky drones, and the Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of all our behavior through “data fusion centers.”
wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
Umm the drones can get small enough so they can follow all politicians and record all their lies in private and public! So you better tell the truth. Politicians should know these drones can see wherever you go, who you sleep with too!
Once the politicians figured out that drones can be the size of flies they all of a sudden shouted out interest on privacy concerns.
No matter, we will continue to develop and the best thing about drones is anyone can create them today that have the ability to transmit video and audio over a fair distance right onto an SSD waiting to capture the data.
The only reason politicians are worried about such tech is because the private sector has access to it.
And trust me when I say the public sector WILL(is using) use it. And here the government is all off into the firearm world passing asinine regulations wasting time while the people are busy finding better ways to keep them in check.
God I love this country...
Free skeet shooting if they fly over my house :)
Until they take your guns and constitutional right to bear arms....
Here Here .... I can't wait to see how they react to a .308 or even a 12 guage if low enough. Folks, you can thank George Lucas for the coining of the word drones.
When I was a kid, they were just radio controlled planes. Did I miss anything or are they not just radio controlled helicopters in various shapes and sizes with cameras and weapons?
Was ther some break through technology here or was that not the logical conclusion to the thoughts and projections of aggressive LEO personalities who got a hold of them? Putting missiles and guns on them is totally adolescant if you ask me.
MUCH worse if you are a Yemeni or Pakistani !!!
Hey,Dan, I never thought I'd say this ... but you and are worried and ON THE SAME SIDE. Shoot that bastard out of the sky with my blessing, even though I'm personally concerned about handgun violence in American cities. Here it is. Perhaps, a high powered weapon with the right scatter shot aimed at that low flying invasion of privacy, might just bring it down. Then, they would come for you. That's the part where we rise up in your defense, storm the jail where you're held, and champion our freedoms while they roll in the tanks. And I saw Tiannamen Square unfold and thought, wow, it could never happen here!
“How small can these things get?”
small...very, very small.
They can, be part of your blood stream if you're not careful. lol.
It's a brave new world we're entering into. My only worry is that they may be "hackable". They have the potential to be the new virus that we have to seek to cure.
Drone on. There is a time and place for everything. "In the year 2525 - if man is still alive..." Credit due where it is due. Live on.
May be hackable? - they are and have been.
...said Franken. “God help us if an adolescent boy gets hold of one of these.”
Seriously? Adolescent boys and their middle aged parents already have access to "drones." You can order them online - just like the model airplane kits your father used to buy for you; only these have cameras! Don't worry, for us it's just a harmless family bonding hobby. We're not plotting to overthrow Canada! It is, however, a great way to surreptitiously check on the boy & make sure he's actually doing his homework. :)
Ashland:
Appropriate comment! Where in the heck does one find a decent "glow plug" nowdays? lol
Privacy? Privacy? You don't need privacy. Remember, President Obama wants "transparency" which includes your personal lives. Drones, universal access to gun registration records, etc.
Yeah.. the nerve of Obama .. all the republicans want is to shove metal phallic objects up woman's vaginas .. nothing invasive about that.
dont worry about meteors hitting you on the head the gov. will do it on there own with drones but i hope it lands on there house not mine next we will have chips installed at birth like a dog
A three word solution .. "drone hunting season". All the nra trailer trash can hit the streets with their assault weapons with 100 round clips and blast away. It will be just like detroit at halloween.
Let's see....disguising ones self and video taping, then cherry picking the interviews with Acorn is just fine....nothing wrong constitutionally with that....but flying a drone over your neighborhood to search for criminals......ohhhhhh...big brother!
There have been helecopters flying over cities for decades...why not ground them.
For the most part this argument is being perputrated by the same looney people who brought us the truther movement, the birther movement, and Doomsday Preppers.
Helicopters mak a fair amount of noise, but drones can be so stealthy that beyond thirty feet you literally don't know they are there!
What is with this Woman she wants to restrict your right to own a firearm but doesn't trust the Government?
Time for her to retire.
She should have retired a long time ago! Also HM Queen Pelosi. Question. How much money is expended flying a large aircraft between D.C. and California? Flying Queen Pelosi? Sit down, shut up and stop the botox!
so when can I buy an drone detection system with a little anti drone missile, or better yet just jam its control frequency and crash or hijack it?
Believe me the nerds are working on this as these develop.
That's where the 2nd amendment is useful. If I see a drone hovering around my house and following me around that things going down.
You won't see it. It will be over 400' up and effectively invisible.
At least drones are alot cheaper than losing a multi million dollar aircraft and a millions of dollars of a trained pilot. If put in harms way, a war zone..etc
The United States is not a war zone but its getting their!