6 ms·

The Drone Zone

50 points by corywatilo 14y ago

thrill 14y ago
So? They're unarmed. It's about as dangerous as a TV helicopter videoing you driving.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Civilians tailing civilians is one thing, but military tailing civilians had some legal problems[1]. I am not really happy they used one to execute what should be an illegal search for some cows in ND[2]. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act 2) http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/north-dakota-police-use-predator-drone-catch-cow-thieves http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/north-dakota-po...
  - mc32 14y ago
    Isn't there an increase in cattle rustling in the prairie states? Not saying the military should be directly involved, but I can see some org dedicated to finding rustlers using this technique as an option, if it's effective.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      North Dakota didn't see the rise that other states did. That is probably from all the oil jobs in western ND. The military is not supposed to be directly involved in civilian law enforcement. Effective is not a consideration at that point. It would cut crime a lot to have troops on every corner of Detroit, but that is not something that is good long term for the citizens of the US.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    How was that an illegal search?
    - protomyth 14y ago
      Using a military drone to do civilian law enforcement should violate the act, but I guess we will see as the case makes its way through the courts.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  They can't really do any harm, unless the unthinkable happens, and someone hacks them. Thankfully, that won't happen: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/02/drone-hackedwith-1000-spoofer/ http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/02/drone-hackedwith-....
tptacek 14y ago
Bogus title; should be "The Drone Zone". The bit about tracking a civilian SUV wasn't even the lede.
- DevX101 14y ago
  I prefer descriptive titles. I don't know what an article called 'drone zone' will be about.
  - corywatilo 14y ago
    I actually copied the title straight from Drudge. I wouldn't have read "The Drone Zone" either.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Androsynth 14y ago
  I've noticed this has happened more and more recently: an article with a link bait title makes it to the front page and then it gets it's name changed (im not sure if its changed by admins or submitters) I've also noticed (from seeing the pre-change link-bait title and the post-change original title) that I would probably miss out on some interesting articles if it wasn't for link bait titles. (ie I agree with sibling DevX101) So now I don't really see anything wrong with changing the title, as long as its done prudently. What's worse is blog authors that give their uninteresting articles link-bait names, then making it to the front page based not on the content of the essay but on the effectiveness of the title.
- tkahn6 14y ago
  That would explain why all the comments are about civilian drone programs when the article does not mention a civilian drone program at all.
jessriedel 14y ago
Ignoring corywatilo's link-bait title, it's worth pointing that >within a year or so, the number of Air Force pilots flying unmanned planes could be higher than the number who actually leave the ground is true because the pilots being trained to fly drones already outnumber conventional pilots in training.
ck2 14y ago
Wait until every police force has a dozen little drones in 2015 and they start paying for them by automatically generating (incontestable) speeding tickets. If they WANT to write you a ticket, all they'll have to do is track you from home to work, as long as it takes and it will be perfectly legal, completely warrantless.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Cushman 14y ago
  Is it wrong to not be bothered by this? I'll be disappointed if fully autonomous vehicles haven't started to hit the market by 2015. Stricter enforcement of manual driving rules should probably be a part of that. I'm not saying I'm down with the idea of a government robot following me everywhere to see if I'm breaking the law, but I'm not very sympathetic to the idea that we have some sort of right to violate traffic regulations without consequence.
  - TruthElixirX 14y ago
    It will not be used for road safety, it will be used to target dissent or people they don't like since there are so many traffic laws you are probably always breaking one.
    - sixcorners 14y ago
      They always get you using those obscure laws like yielding to oncoming traffic or using turn signals. Can't the law be used to target dissent now? If the law were enforced more strictly, like Cushman wants, wouldn't that have the opposite effect?
  - David_Sauter 14y ago
    A drone costs more than a helicopter. The FAA has ensured that the price isn't going to fall too far since their avionics has to be DO-178B class A rated. I.E. the same rating that passenger aircraft need to get. That's _expensive_
Malcx 14y ago
Although the title is link bait, this really doesn't surprise me. Driving across the New Forest in the UK last summer I was "stalked" for half an hour by a couple of Apache helicopters. Every few minutes they'd pop up from behind cover or on the horizon somewhere, always pointing directly at my car. I see no problem with it at all.
- pyre 14y ago
  No offense, but I can see that freaking some people out if they don't realize that it's probably a training exercise (especially Apache helicopters!).
- jws 14y ago
  The A-10 warthog pilots used to practice on my employees' vehicles as they'd drive to visit a customer. The pilots work in pairs, each working back and forth over the vehicle from a different direction. It seems the strategy is that while one is wheeling to return the other is in mid attack. You certainly feel you have their undivided attention. It helps if you pretend they aren't carrying live ammunition.
- gaius 14y ago
  If you sail, you'll often be buzzed by military rescue helicopters too, practicing their approaches. Which is absolutely fine, if I ever need a helicopter to come rescue me (or a gunship to shoot the crap out of someone who's trying to shoot me!) I'm happy to have helped them train.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Such practices, when startling or threatening, are straight-up assault. But same thing when cops stand on the side of the road in an aggressive posture while aiming their (radar) gun at anyone passing by. The moral imperative has little bearing on autonomous governments.
Vivtek 14y ago
The F-16 trainers out of Wright-Pat used to user our house as a target - they'd circle it sometimes. It was pretty neat.
shareme 14y ago
WELCOME TO SKYNET... Coming online in 1...2....3... ..oh .oh
tkahn6 14y ago
> “Wait, you guys practice tracking enemies by using civilian cars?” Um. Is there evidence that Afghan and Iraqi insurgents use anything but civilian vehicles?
eragnew 14y ago
In my view, the importance of this article is this question: 'Who watches the watchers?' What does that mean exactly? Well, it seems to me that there are some people (authorities) in the US who would like to use drones for domestic policing and surveillance. While that may not be a bad thing in and of itself, it could be abused by someone who has a desire to abuse others. So my takeaway is that transparency into domestic drone programs is a good thing. And I, for one, will not trust any domestic agency that wants to use drones without being truly transparent about what they want to use drones for.

The Drone Zone

50 points by corywatilo 14y ago

thrill 14y ago

So? They're unarmed. It's about as dangerous as a TV helicopter videoing you driving.

protomyth 14y ago
Civilians tailing civilians is one thing, but military tailing civilians had some legal problems[1]. I am not really happy they used one to execute what should be an illegal search for some cows in ND[2]. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act 2) http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/north-dakota-police-use-predator-drone-catch-cow-thieves http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/north-dakota-po...
- mc32 14y ago
  Isn't there an increase in cattle rustling in the prairie states? Not saying the military should be directly involved, but I can see some org dedicated to finding rustlers using this technique as an option, if it's effective.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    North Dakota didn't see the rise that other states did. That is probably from all the oil jobs in western ND. The military is not supposed to be directly involved in civilian law enforcement. Effective is not a consideration at that point. It would cut crime a lot to have troops on every corner of Detroit, but that is not something that is good long term for the citizens of the US.
- jrockway 14y ago
  How was that an illegal search?
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Using a military drone to do civilian law enforcement should violate the act, but I guess we will see as the case makes its way through the courts.
kmfrk 14y ago
They can't really do any harm, unless the unthinkable happens, and someone hacks them. Thankfully, that won't happen: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/02/drone-hackedwith-1000-spoofer/ http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/02/drone-hackedwith-....

tptacek 14y ago

Bogus title; should be "The Drone Zone". The bit about tracking a civilian SUV wasn't even the lede.

DevX101 14y ago
I prefer descriptive titles. I don't know what an article called 'drone zone' will be about.
- corywatilo 14y ago
  I actually copied the title straight from Drudge. I wouldn't have read "The Drone Zone" either.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Androsynth 14y ago
I've noticed this has happened more and more recently: an article with a link bait title makes it to the front page and then it gets it's name changed (im not sure if its changed by admins or submitters) I've also noticed (from seeing the pre-change link-bait title and the post-change original title) that I would probably miss out on some interesting articles if it wasn't for link bait titles. (ie I agree with sibling DevX101) So now I don't really see anything wrong with changing the title, as long as its done prudently. What's worse is blog authors that give their uninteresting articles link-bait names, then making it to the front page based not on the content of the essay but on the effectiveness of the title.
tkahn6 14y ago
That would explain why all the comments are about civilian drone programs when the article does not mention a civilian drone program at all.

jessriedel 14y ago

Ignoring corywatilo's link-bait title, it's worth pointing that >within a year or so, the number of Air Force pilots flying unmanned planes could be higher than the number who actually leave the ground is true because the pilots being trained to fly drones already outnumber conventional pilots in training.

ck2 14y ago

Wait until every police force has a dozen little drones in 2015 and they start paying for them by automatically generating (incontestable) speeding tickets. If they WANT to write you a ticket, all they'll have to do is track you from home to work, as long as it takes and it will be perfectly legal, completely warrantless.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Cushman 14y ago
Is it wrong to not be bothered by this? I'll be disappointed if fully autonomous vehicles haven't started to hit the market by 2015. Stricter enforcement of manual driving rules should probably be a part of that. I'm not saying I'm down with the idea of a government robot following me everywhere to see if I'm breaking the law, but I'm not very sympathetic to the idea that we have some sort of right to violate traffic regulations without consequence.
- TruthElixirX 14y ago
  It will not be used for road safety, it will be used to target dissent or people they don't like since there are so many traffic laws you are probably always breaking one.
  - sixcorners 14y ago
    They always get you using those obscure laws like yielding to oncoming traffic or using turn signals. Can't the law be used to target dissent now? If the law were enforced more strictly, like Cushman wants, wouldn't that have the opposite effect?
- David_Sauter 14y ago
  A drone costs more than a helicopter. The FAA has ensured that the price isn't going to fall too far since their avionics has to be DO-178B class A rated. I.E. the same rating that passenger aircraft need to get. That's _expensive_

Malcx 14y ago

Although the title is link bait, this really doesn't surprise me. Driving across the New Forest in the UK last summer I was "stalked" for half an hour by a couple of Apache helicopters. Every few minutes they'd pop up from behind cover or on the horizon somewhere, always pointing directly at my car. I see no problem with it at all.

pyre 14y ago
No offense, but I can see that freaking some people out if they don't realize that it's probably a training exercise (especially Apache helicopters!).
jws 14y ago
The A-10 warthog pilots used to practice on my employees' vehicles as they'd drive to visit a customer. The pilots work in pairs, each working back and forth over the vehicle from a different direction. It seems the strategy is that while one is wheeling to return the other is in mid attack. You certainly feel you have their undivided attention. It helps if you pretend they aren't carrying live ammunition.
gaius 14y ago
If you sail, you'll often be buzzed by military rescue helicopters too, practicing their approaches. Which is absolutely fine, if I ever need a helicopter to come rescue me (or a gunship to shoot the crap out of someone who's trying to shoot me!) I'm happy to have helped them train.
mindslight 14y ago
Such practices, when startling or threatening, are straight-up assault. But same thing when cops stand on the side of the road in an aggressive posture while aiming their (radar) gun at anyone passing by. The moral imperative has little bearing on autonomous governments.

Vivtek 14y ago

The F-16 trainers out of Wright-Pat used to user our house as a target - they'd circle it sometimes. It was pretty neat.

shareme 14y ago

WELCOME TO SKYNET... Coming online in 1...2....3... ..oh .oh

tkahn6 14y ago

> “Wait, you guys practice tracking enemies by using civilian cars?” Um. Is there evidence that Afghan and Iraqi insurgents use anything but civilian vehicles?

eragnew 14y ago

In my view, the importance of this article is this question: 'Who watches the watchers?' What does that mean exactly? Well, it seems to me that there are some people (authorities) in the US who would like to use drones for domestic policing and surveillance. While that may not be a bad thing in and of itself, it could be abused by someone who has a desire to abuse others. So my takeaway is that transparency into domestic drone programs is a good thing. And I, for one, will not trust any domestic agency that wants to use drones without being truly transparent about what they want to use drones for.