8 ms·

Drones replace patrol ships on Mediterranean

34 points by seapunk 7y ago

astrodev 7y ago
Didn’t read the article, but the title sounds very much like something I would support. No need to add to the gigantic amount of money Europe wastes on social care.
wtdata 7y ago
Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty. But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty. I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine. EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Also perhaps preventing human traffickers from loading people on boats that can't cross the sea, leading them to their death.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  1) Under EU law, if they had been using boats, they would have had a legal duty to save drowning migrants. This is why they switched to drones--no legal duty. 3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid. That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    Who pays for so many boats? The drones are used to make the security more efficient. If the drones see migrants they alert nearby ships that turn the migrants back. If they see them drowning you can be sure they send boats anyway. It's really an efficiency solution, I'm not sure why you try to make this an evil conspiracy.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      I'm not making this a conspiracy, you are. They've stated they don't use boats because drones are cheaper and don't trigger rescue responsibilities.
hugh4life 7y ago
"Experts condemn move to aerial surveillance as an abrogation of ‘responsibility to save lives’" The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up. It's morally irresponsible to encourage people to make the dangerous trek to pay smugglers who put them on inflated crafts unable to make the journey that depend on them getting picked up by the coast guard. As Australia's example shows, the way to stop drownings is to give no benefits to taking the journey.
- sneak 7y ago
  Another way to stop drownings is to go and pick people up with rescue boats. There is no disadvantage to allowing them to enter the EU.
  - devit 7y ago
    There is a disadvantage if it turns out that these people make on average a negative contribution to the economy (i.e. if the aid they need and damage they cause via crimes is higher than the surplus created by them aiding others, and producing useful labor, good and services), which would mean that they make the people already there worse off and worser off the more of them are allowed to enter. I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.
  - literallycancer 7y ago
    People without work permits are either dependent on government support or contribute to worsening working conditions for everyone by working illegally. More resources have to be spent to make them productive. In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Or they could bring them back to their port of departure on the South of the Mediterranean, so they can try to enter legally. (or better not at all.)
n1ght 7y ago
No one has a duty to support human traffickers.
stunt 7y ago
It is not like EU is hosting most of the refugees. It’s just media coverage and some politicians talking more than anyone about it. In fact countries hosting much more refugees aren’t complaining as much. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil...
- thefounder 7y ago
  I believe the "burden" is felt differently by countries closer geographically, socially and culturally. How much do they get paid in benefits compared to the UK for example? What are the housing costs and conditions offered there?
  - stunt 7y ago
    Considerably lower but probably it matches to GDP-PPP margins. Perhaps illegal immigrants who are just seeking economic benefits should be returned after checking their cases even if their skills are needed simply because they have entered illegally. But, Mediterranean sea is not the right place to filter them.
- simonsarris 7y ago
  This article is about migrants/human traffickers leaving from Libya, and does not mention Syria. It is very incorrect to conflate the two situations. Here is a vague overview with a map if you are unaware: http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya
despera 7y ago
EU and each european country are responsible for the deaths of thousands refugees and migrants in Mediterranean sea and many more rot in concentration camps. The EU has financed walls (yes the same EU that makes fun of Trump) like the one at Evros river at greek-turkish borders, a place that could be used as a safe passage, away from risky sea smuggling. While supposedly it's illegal to return migrants back to countries that could risk their life, still the EU made a deal with Turkey to do exactly that. Same wise they paying the Libya to keep refugees and migrants in awful concentration camps away from the EU, yes the same Libya that is under civil war is considered by EU a safe country. In fact a few days ago such a concentration camp was bombed and many lost their lives. EU's Frontex and local forces keep pushing back the boats with refugees, something that's totally and universally illegal. It is high time to stop this immunity that EU enjoys to the public talk, childhood's end has arrived long ago for that particular organization.
- thefounder 7y ago
  These migrants have to stay somewhere(in a EU country), be fed and taken care of for a long time. Is you or your country willing to do that? It seems that Frontex does a good job at stopping shaky boats taking dangerous journeys, thus less people die so I'm not sure why this bothers you. Securing the border seems a sensible thing to do especially after the terrorist attacks, however as far as I'm aware once the people reach the border they are treated humanly(i.e not put in cages, separated from children etc). People who come here for economic benefits should be returned(unless they have skills that can bring a positive contribution). Everyone is responsible for its own life especially when the risk is known.
  - despera 7y ago
    I think i was pretty clear right from the beginning. "EU and each european country" As for the rest of it how sensible closed borders policies are i will rephrase old Smullyan, it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left. Open borders and free, safe passage.
soneil 7y ago
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this. It's a work-around, not a solution. There is a legal duty, when at sea, to render aid as necessary to ships in distress. If EUFOR or the coastguard don't have an asset nearby, this doesn't absolve the responsibility, it just transfers it. We're going to end up with commercial shipping being diverted to render aid instead (as long as they've already left Libyan waters). It's not solving anything, it's just shifting the cost and burden.
- thefounder 7y ago
  I think the plan is to cut costs and intercept these boats before they enter European waters. Flying multiple drones is definitely more efficient than patrol boats.

34 points by seapunk 7y ago

Didn’t read the article, but the title sounds very much like something I would support. No need to add to the gigantic amount of money Europe wastes on social care.

wtdata 7y ago

Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty. But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty. I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine. EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.

baud147258 7y ago
Also perhaps preventing human traffickers from loading people on boats that can't cross the sea, leading them to their death.
gamblor956 7y ago
1) Under EU law, if they had been using boats, they would have had a legal duty to save drowning migrants. This is why they switched to drones--no legal duty. 3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid. That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Who pays for so many boats? The drones are used to make the security more efficient. If the drones see migrants they alert nearby ships that turn the migrants back. If they see them drowning you can be sure they send boats anyway. It's really an efficiency solution, I'm not sure why you try to make this an evil conspiracy.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I'm not making this a conspiracy, you are. They've stated they don't use boats because drones are cheaper and don't trigger rescue responsibilities.

hugh4life 7y ago

"Experts condemn move to aerial surveillance as an abrogation of ‘responsibility to save lives’" The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up. It's morally irresponsible to encourage people to make the dangerous trek to pay smugglers who put them on inflated crafts unable to make the journey that depend on them getting picked up by the coast guard. As Australia's example shows, the way to stop drownings is to give no benefits to taking the journey.

sneak 7y ago
Another way to stop drownings is to go and pick people up with rescue boats. There is no disadvantage to allowing them to enter the EU.
- devit 7y ago
  There is a disadvantage if it turns out that these people make on average a negative contribution to the economy (i.e. if the aid they need and damage they cause via crimes is higher than the surplus created by them aiding others, and producing useful labor, good and services), which would mean that they make the people already there worse off and worser off the more of them are allowed to enter. I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.
- literallycancer 7y ago
  People without work permits are either dependent on government support or contribute to worsening working conditions for everyone by working illegally. More resources have to be spent to make them productive. In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Or they could bring them back to their port of departure on the South of the Mediterranean, so they can try to enter legally. (or better not at all.)

n1ght 7y ago

No one has a duty to support human traffickers.

stunt 7y ago

It is not like EU is hosting most of the refugees. It’s just media coverage and some politicians talking more than anyone about it. In fact countries hosting much more refugees aren’t complaining as much. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Statistics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil...

thefounder 7y ago
I believe the "burden" is felt differently by countries closer geographically, socially and culturally. How much do they get paid in benefits compared to the UK for example? What are the housing costs and conditions offered there?
- stunt 7y ago
  Considerably lower but probably it matches to GDP-PPP margins. Perhaps illegal immigrants who are just seeking economic benefits should be returned after checking their cases even if their skills are needed simply because they have entered illegally. But, Mediterranean sea is not the right place to filter them.
simonsarris 7y ago
This article is about migrants/human traffickers leaving from Libya, and does not mention Syria. It is very incorrect to conflate the two situations. Here is a vague overview with a map if you are unaware: http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya

despera 7y ago

EU and each european country are responsible for the deaths of thousands refugees and migrants in Mediterranean sea and many more rot in concentration camps. The EU has financed walls (yes the same EU that makes fun of Trump) like the one at Evros river at greek-turkish borders, a place that could be used as a safe passage, away from risky sea smuggling. While supposedly it's illegal to return migrants back to countries that could risk their life, still the EU made a deal with Turkey to do exactly that. Same wise they paying the Libya to keep refugees and migrants in awful concentration camps away from the EU, yes the same Libya that is under civil war is considered by EU a safe country. In fact a few days ago such a concentration camp was bombed and many lost their lives. EU's Frontex and local forces keep pushing back the boats with refugees, something that's totally and universally illegal. It is high time to stop this immunity that EU enjoys to the public talk, childhood's end has arrived long ago for that particular organization.

thefounder 7y ago
These migrants have to stay somewhere(in a EU country), be fed and taken care of for a long time. Is you or your country willing to do that? It seems that Frontex does a good job at stopping shaky boats taking dangerous journeys, thus less people die so I'm not sure why this bothers you. Securing the border seems a sensible thing to do especially after the terrorist attacks, however as far as I'm aware once the people reach the border they are treated humanly(i.e not put in cages, separated from children etc). People who come here for economic benefits should be returned(unless they have skills that can bring a positive contribution). Everyone is responsible for its own life especially when the risk is known.
- despera 7y ago
  I think i was pretty clear right from the beginning. "EU and each european country" As for the rest of it how sensible closed borders policies are i will rephrase old Smullyan, it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left. Open borders and free, safe passage.

soneil 7y ago

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this. It's a work-around, not a solution. There is a legal duty, when at sea, to render aid as necessary to ships in distress. If EUFOR or the coastguard don't have an asset nearby, this doesn't absolve the responsibility, it just transfers it. We're going to end up with commercial shipping being diverted to render aid instead (as long as they've already left Libyan waters). It's not solving anything, it's just shifting the cost and burden.

thefounder 7y ago
I think the plan is to cut costs and intercept these boats before they enter European waters. Flying multiple drones is definitely more efficient than patrol boats.