Orwell, you were correct.

W

Wildcard

Moderator
Drones over Los Angeles

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has started last week to test unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These small drones, which look like toys, weigh about 5 pounds and are equipped with a GPS device and a camera. They'll complement the helicopters of the department where it's too dangerous to go. These drones can fly at speeds up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour for 70 minutes and cost between 25,000 and 30,000 dollars. They could even replace conventional surveillance aircrafts within ten years -- and check from the sky what's happening in your garden. But read more...

Let's start with how the AFP summarizes the missions assigned to these drones.

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."

This drone has been designed by Octatron, Inc. and is called the SkySeer. And why this drone will be useful? Because it's light and can go -- almost -- everywhere.

The SkySeer would also be a helpful tool to nab burglary suspects on rooftops and to chase down suspects fleeing on foot. The plane collapses and can fit into a shoulder pack smaller than a golf bag. Its portability and ease of assembly could be a big advantage for law enforcement. "It's basically a high-tech kite that field officers could set up in a matter of minutes," said Heal.

The image below shows you the major tools of the SkySeer unmanned plane (Credit: Octatron).

The SkySeer unmanned plane

For more technical information about this drone, you can check its characteristics or read this brochure (PDF format, 2 pages, 1.51 MB) from which the image above has been extracted.

And what is the future for such drones? Pretty bright, according to the AFP.

Unmanned surveillance crafts may become the norm in urban policing, says Heal. "Who knew five years ago we would be shooting photos and video with our phones?" he said. "I could see this drone technology replacing some demand for conventional aircrafts 10 years into the future."

Of course, such invisible surveillance tools are not welcome by everybody.

Though the SkySeer is not capable of spying into windows just yet, for some a future of nearly invisible eyes in the sky is an unsettling introduction of science fiction into daily life. "A helicopter can be seen and heard, and one can make behavior choices based on that," said Beth Givens of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. "Do we really want to live in a society where our backyard barbeques will be open to police scrutiny?"

But this kind of surveillance already exists. This is just an additional tool for police departments or armed forces. So this kind of tool has probably a bright future.

Sources: AFP, via PhysOrg.com, June 17, 2006; and various web sites

http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/index.php?p=267
 
Exactly how was Orwell (whose book dealt with the use of propaganda and language to control thought, as well as the constant surveillance outside and INSIDE of homes) correct?

Exactly how does this violate the non-existent right to conceal your public activities from view?

Exactly how is this different from the constant surveillance of every passing light aircraft/helo/etc that's already flying overhead?
 
buzz_knox said:
Exactly how is this different from the constant surveillance of every passing light aircraft/helo/etc that's already flying overhead?
Click to expand...
Exactly how can you fail to identify the difference between an airplane/helicopter, and a small unmanned craft capable of hovering undetected, watching your every move through your bedroom window?

Are you one of those, "if your not breaking the law, you've nothing to worry about" types?
 
Exactly how can you fail to identify the difference between an airplane/helicopter, and a small unmanned craft capable of hovering undetected, watching your every move through your bedroom window?
Click to expand...

Though the SkySeer is not capable of spying into windows just yet, for some a future of nearly invisible eyes in the sky is an unsettling introduction of science fiction into daily life.
Click to expand...

Want to try that again, with a bit more accuracy this time?

Actually, let me help you with it. Any helo or light aircraft with a pilot with binoculars can look inside a home. Think there haven't already been problems with cops doing just that, sightseeing outside peoples bedrooms?

And the end result will probably be that the Supreme Court will find that such surveillance isn't reasonable absent a warrant or exigent circumstances (which is the law currently). Whether or not Orwell will be proven right will be determined by what happens after that ruling.
 
It's obvious the author is alluding to the possibility that in the not so distant future, we may be watched with drones even in our own homes.

My accuracy is fine. If you must take everything in it's most literal sense, then why involve yourself in any discussion that attempts to forecast where things may lead... because after all they aren't there yet.
 
You gave a possibility as fact. There's nothing accurate about that.

The discussion is about whether Orwell is correct as of this date. You were forestalling the discussion by assuming facts not in evidence.
 
buzz_knox said:
You gave a possibility as fact. There's nothing accurate about that.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false. I posed no possibilities as fact. I spoke of how the article itself alluded to the possibility.

buzz_knox said:
Actually, let me help you with it. Any helo or light aircraft with a pilot with binoculars can look inside a home.
Click to expand...

I see you've edited your post. Your help is unnecessary.

Your "it's already happening" argument is inadequate.

In many instances, infringement on our rights is already happening in some form or another - though less blatant & detectable to some. It doesn't mean that we should not or cannot discuss the ramifications as these issues evolve.

If this will or will not develop into something that violates are rights (or violates them more directly) is worthy of discussion even if you feel otherwise.

buzz_knox said:
The discussion is about whether Orwell is correct as of this date.
Click to expand...
If you feel that due to the title of the thread, all Wildcard meant for discussion is the Orwell reference and it's validity, I beg to differ.

I'm also not going to maintain this bravado contest. Lets just agree to disagree before we get this thread locked due to bickering.
 
TBM - the word stubborn is name calling and cause for anger? I've edited my post to take out the word.

My apologies buzz_knox, if this offended you.
 
I wasn't offended, Trip. I just wanted to start the discussion right, by not jumping into the "it's 1984" malarky too many fall into. Orwell would probably be happy people were using his book as a guidepost, but would probably be real concerned about target acquisition.

Is there a possibility for abuse with this technology? Absolutely. Is there a likelihood? Again, absolutely. But that exists with every technology available from cops, from batons and firearms to FLIR. The key is to figure out what they actually can do under the police power reserved to the states by the US Constitution, and then granted under the individual state constitutions.

Right now, they are allowed to observe you anywhere you have no expectation of privacy. If they start coming into areas where you do have an expectation of privacy, that's an area of grave concern and where immediate action is needed. But not dealing with the facts at hand and jumping straight to what we can extrapolate tends to blur the distinction and ends up loosing the argument for you.
 
By the way, I owe an apology as well, for giving undue importance to the title thread. The focus should be on the proper use of this technology and the limitations thereon.
 
It's been at least two decades since I read "1984," but if I recall correctly, Orwell predicted the use of helicopters to patrol neighborhoods from the air. We have that kind of thing in many cities these days.

Used to be that shifting through mountains of data was a kind of barrier to the government from knowing too much about its citizens. There was no efficient way to sort the good info from the garbage. With the advent of supercomputers, that's much less of a problem now.

As for invasion of privacy, imaging technologies can uncover an amazing amount of information that most folks would think is undiscoverable. Is it an invasion of your privacy when someone standing outside with sophisticated equipment can read your body heat while you are inside of your home? I seem to recall an incident where the police arrested someone for growing pot inside his house, and part of the evidence used to obtain an arrest warrant was the heat signature coming from the guy's house. I'm not sure how the case was decided, but the police position was that since the heat had left the house, there was no invasion of privacy.

For a while, the US government was recording private conversations based on the vibrations made on windows when Soviet officials were talking inside places such as cars and rooms. Similar to the above, is this an invasion of privacy?

These are just the ways we know of. It is reasonable to believe other, unpublicized data collection methods exist. If they exist, they are being used; otherwise, there would be no reason for them to exist. If they are being used, perhaps they are being used against only our enemies. Or perhaps not.
 
buzz_knox,

It appears we agree more than not. My error seems to be assuming that the article had dealt with the facts at hand (i.e., technology is not employed and/or does not exist as of yet...etc), and therefore allowing the discussion to move into contemplating the possibilities of where this may lead.

It's also a good idea to make the discussion as devoid of tin-foil-beanyness as possible. I hope (read: know) we agree there! :)
 
Find & Replace "Black Helicopters" with "Little White Airplanes". JK, it's a real privacy concern, if you ask me. On the plus side, would be a lot easier to take them out from a position of stealth. Maybe I DO need a 10 gauge after all - PULL! :)
 
I'm more worried about unmanned vehicles flitting about through some of the most congested VFR airspace in the world. The stupid things are damn near impossible to see, and they don't carry transponders so they don't show on TCAS. If they launch their pretty little toys, pilots and people on the ground will die in collisions. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Airspace

Coin.....You've a point there, but I assume (stupidly?) that they'll have to stay below the floor of the class of airspace they're flying in. In LA this would be highly-restrictive class B. They'll have to stay low.:mad:
 
It's also a good idea to make the discussion as devoid of tin-foil-beanyness as possible. I hope (read: know) we agree there!
Click to expand...

Bingo!

As for any future issues with peeping tom aircraft, I guess I need to take up skeet shooting.
 
As a model airplane, I question whether the FARs regarding airspace apply, but even if they do, there would be nothing to prevent the cops from getting permission to enter the airspace and conduct their operation.

Tim
 
What if they put x-ray thingy on them that can look in to our homes, and then they have microwave emmiters on them to control our thoughts!!!
But in other news, Tin Foil stocks are on the rise.
 
Nude sun bathing in your back yard behind high fences - make sure you have your Bofors L-70 40mm with you.

Want to have fun - paint one with UN colors and logos and fly it over the GOA BBQ. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top