Police set to arm drones with "non lethal weapons" on civilian populations

Run_to_da_hills

When you give this type of battle field technology to the authorities they will no doubt abuse it.

First we were bombarded with the news that 30,000 drones would be spying on us domestically and within weeks the agenda has already moved on to arming the drones with non-lethal weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeJYHpCQrIs

CBS DC reports that the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas “is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.” “It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” responded Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/

Matt Holck

can't really check for wounds and damages from a remote craft

superluck

US prison system, military and now police are fantastic places to make money.

Vanguard stock is bit on the expensive side trading at $62 bucks but might be worth a look again in future if they receive more contracts for drones, hopefully the drones will be so badly made, the government will just keep buying more.

The other good news is that despite the financial turmoil and austerity taking place in Europe and US, the NATO have signed a $1.4 bln dollar deal with Northrop Grumman for drones.

As some of you know, Northrop G. are my favorite defense stock after Alliant Techsystems that supply the military all their ammo.

NATO's value for money deal pushed NG stock up 1%

You can take comfort knowing that even in times of recession, you can still make money from defense stocks.

Manic Moran

It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” responded Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU

Why not? Other than that it's her opinion.

Any use of force is either legal or illegal. I strongly doubt that the person on the receiving end of the rubber bullet is going to particularly care if it was a solenoid or a muscle that pulled the trigger.

NTM

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? Other than that it's her opinion.

Any use of force is either legal or illegal. I strongly doubt that the person on the receiving end of the rubber bullet is going to particularly care if it was a solenoid or a muscle that pulled the trigger.

NTM

I agree, if you're being gassed or hit with a rubber bullet who cares what shot it?

InTheTrees

As far as I'm aware the drones are remotely piloted.

In other words there's a human flying the thing. And firing any ordnance that it may be carrying.

Its not like its an autonomous robot capable of deciding who to shoot at on its own.

There is a human being at the trigger.

Not that I approve...

:eek:

Manach

So to paraphrase some of the NRA types, Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

Run_to_da_hills

InTheTrees wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the drones are remotely piloted.

In other words there's a human flying the thing. And firing any ordnance that it may be carrying.

Its not like its an autonomous robot capable of deciding who to shoot at on its own.

There is a human being at the trigger.

Not that I approve...

:eek:

More then likely they would be operated from behind a computer screen inside some surveylance van well in behind the line of target.


.

KyussBishop

The dangers of allowing drones to be operated domestically are the same as allowing a massive standing army to reside within a country (which is a danger the US founders had in mind and specifically prohibited); they can be turned against the populous at any time, and in the next couple of decades there will be an enormously increasing number of drones, as manufacturing gets cheaper.

All you have to do is look at the unbelievable stuff going on with drone strikes in Pakistan/Yemen etc., civilians being routinely killed with zero accountability, and the US isn't even officially at war in half of the countries it deploys drones in; same government, same technology, different people.

I keep reasonably well read on topics surrounding US foreign policy and their increasing civil-liberties-encroaching domestic policies, and the way the US is heading is nothing short of alarming; there is a continuing trend of erosion of civil liberties and basic rights, pushes to gain the ability to practically remove all of a persons rights (NDAA), increasing persecution of minorities (muslims), no accountability for corruption (entire finance industry), crackdown on corruption-exposing activities (whistleblowing), various attempts at gaining increased control over freedom of speech/expression (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP; the start of a slippery slope to come), and more.

There are plenty more things I can think of off the top of my head, but the list could get rather big; the country is getting more extreme year by year, and it seems like that's accelerating by quite a large margin.
Reading about this in the last half year or so, has me increasingly wondering where it will all stop, and what the endgame is; things only look to get worse as time goes on.

Also it's exceedingly easy to "prove" just cause after the event in the few cases where it's necessary.

Run_to_da_hills

KyussBishop wrote: »

The dangers of allowing drones to be operated domestically are the same as allowing a massive standing army to reside within a country (which is a danger the US founders had in mind and specifically prohibited); they can be turned against the populous at any time, and in the next couple of decades there will be an enormously increasing number of drones, as manufacturing gets cheaper.

Manufacturing in the US is as cheap as you can get when one takes into consideration the ever expanding privately run US prison machine that takes advantage of slave cheap slave labor.

KyussBishop wrote: »

All you have to do is look at the unbelievable stuff going on with drone strikes in Pakistan/Yemen etc., civilians being routinely killed with zero accountability, and the US isn't even officially at war in half of the countries it deploys drones in; same government, same technology, different people.

I keep reasonably well read on topics surrounding US foreign policy and their increasing civil-liberties-encroaching domestic policies, and the way the US is heading is nothing short of alarming; there is a continuing trend of erosion of civil liberties and basic rights, pushes to gain the ability to practically remove all of a persons rights (NDAA), increasing persecution of minorities (muslims), no accountability for corruption (entire finance industry), crackdown on corruption-exposing activities (whistleblowing), various attempts at gaining increased control over freedom of speech/expression (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP; the start of a slippery slope to come), and more.

There are plenty more things I can think of off the top of my head, but the list could get rather big; the country is getting more extreme year by year, and it seems like that's accelerating by quite a large margin.
Reading about this in the last half year or so, has me increasingly wondering where it will all stop, and what the endgame is; things only look to get worse as time goes on.

The above is a dangerous conception, when people go out on to the streets to voice their opinion on the above incrimination civil liberties they will in turn be corralled into submission and subsequently arrested or dispersed by these Tazer firing overlooking drones reminiscent of some scene taken from War of the Worlds.

Manic Moran

As opposed to being oppressed by taser-firing officers in person?

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

As opposed to being oppressed by taser-firing officers in person?

Yes, they are more accountable; a person with a badge number, traceable to a precinct/station/commander, allows people to hold that officer, the commander and the connected politicians accountable for that persons actions, and can demand punishment.

A drone in the sky, probably without any identifiable markings to know precisely who owns it (is it the police? what station? is it the FBI? who?), allows far more room for denial and blame shifting, and can remove the ability for any accountability so long as the ownership and operator are kept secret, or useful identifying data deliberately destroyed/'lost' (such as video logs).

Manic Moran

Well, for starters, the drone in the video seems pretty identifiable as to who owns it. We're not talking about Reapers shooting hellfire missiles from five miles away after all.

I don't see the difference in principle between the R/C helo in the video, and the armed robots that the police are already using. Just one runs on tracks, the other flies around.

KyussBishop

What are the ones on tracks? (aside from bomb disposal) Ones on tracks, for starters, are limited to slow movements on the ground, not able to surveil and shoot at a large group of people from above.

Even if these drones start off well-identified, there is a large degree of room for blame shifting and hiding who was operating the drone, and the drones will likely be shared between agencies as well, potentially even private contractors for operating them.

None of this is as accountable as a person with a face, particularly since a drone will typically shoot at people from a considerable distance rather than up close like an policeman would have to (and don't doubt that these drones will be equipped with fully lethal weapons over time).


In the coming decades there will be a hugely increased number of these drones, and they will effectively grow into a massive standing army within the US unless limitations are placed on their usage.

As their numbers grow, this will carry with it all the threats posed by a real standing army, as they can be turned against the populous at any time.

Manic Moran

Police have been using robots with tear gas for some years now.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/police-fire-tear-gas-into-mans-car-in-effort-to-end-westwood-standoff.html

Officers used a robot to toss the tear gas into the Volkswagen Beetle outside the Federal Building on three separate occassions.

Robots with Tasers are at least a five-year-old concept.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/08/armed-robots-so/

KyussBishop

How are they in any way comparable? They aren't deployed wide-scale like the drones will be, and if any of these robots are deployed unassisted, people can walk up to it, pick it up, and throw it into a bin if they like; can't exactly disable a drone so easily.

Pretty different, much more special-purpose, and far less ubiquitous in roles than drones are; it's easy to see drones being deployed wide-scale, whereas these tracked robots seem to just have very limited roles and can only be deployed on a limited basis.

Manic Moran

What makes you think drones would be deployed widescale? For starters, they're usually a little short on endurance.

KyussBishop

As they become cheaper to produce and run, why would they not be deployed wide-scale?

Fleets of drones able to perform near-limitless surveillance, and even able to attack/disable people as desired, all from the comforts of a computer terminal at the police station, far cheaper to run and mobile than helicopters, which typically try to provide this kind of surveillance.

Once the precedent is set allowing their use, and these become cheap enough, they will definitely be used wide-scale, unless restrictions are placed upon them.

Run_to_da_hills

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you think drones would be deployed widescale? For starters, they're usually a little short on endurance.

With technology today I am sure these devices could easily be operated on smart mode where they could be programmed to pinpoint and tazer zap individual suspects or ring leaders in a crowd situation from their cell phone coordinates. The recent BCM 4752 smart phone chip is trackible to within inches on the xyz.

timbyr

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With technology today I am sure these devices could easily be operated on smart mode where they could be programmed to pinpoint and tazer zap individual suspects or ring leaders in a crowd situation from their cell phone coordinates. The recent BCM 4752 smart phone chip is trackible to within inches on the xyz.

Movies work like that. Real life doesn't. The technology for that sort of real time image processing is still in its infancy and usually requires a decent amount of computing power or preprocessed data.

GPS is receive only. You can't track a GPS device from the satellite system.

And you can't do accurate location using mobile signals either. Best they can do there is within a couple of hundred meters.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Once the precedent is set allowing their use, and these become cheap enough, they will definitely be used wide-scale, unless restrictions are placed upon them.

Why wouldn't they be regulated. They seem like a pretty decent idea. The natural placement for them as I see it is as a drop in for the police search helicopters. Cheaper and more available option wouldn't you think. With the added benefit a very low altitude flight and disablement.
I wouldn't argue that the possibility for abuse exists. But that's a long way from fleets of "spy" drones monitoring every citizen.

Do you have the same issue with public CCTV networks?

KyussBishop

timbyr wrote: »

Why wouldn't they be regulated. They seem like a pretty decent idea. The natural placement for them as I see it is as a drop in for the police search helicopters. Cheaper and more available option wouldn't you think. With the added benefit a very low altitude flight and disablement.
I wouldn't argue that the possibility for abuse exists. But that's a long way from fleets of "spy" drones monitoring every citizen.

Do you have the same issue with public CCTV networks?

Oh they will be regulated, but the danger comes from the fact that these drones can at any time be equipped with lethal weapons; in other words, if there is an enormous fleet of drones in the country, they can be converted basically into a massive 'standing army' in a very short space of time, should the government wish to use them against people.
This is explicitly why the US founders were against the idea of maintaining a sizable standing army within the country, due to the threat it would pose; these drones potentially pose the same threat.

The law in the US already allows drones to spy on citizens; if the drones fly past peoples houses, and someone 'accidentally' leaves the camera recording, it was recently ruled that this was not a breach of privacy, does not require a warrant, and that it is legal to investigate such data.


Your talking about the country that granted retroactive immunity for illegal telecoms spying, and which is building a truly enormous data center in Utah, to spy on literally the entire countries Internet traffic, including traffic not originating from the US (i.e. potentially Europe as well; the NSA has been granted hook-ins to international Internet fibre optics by some governments, though not sure if in EU):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

If you've been reading up on the sheer scale of civil liberties breaches and increased spying by the US over the last few years, you'd have very little expectation that the expansion of these overbearing powers will stop.

troposphere

This drone is going to be gathering dust in the police station. Two cops trained when police forces have 3 shifts a day 7 days a week? My local police have gotten all kinds of different gadgets from federal funding since 9/11 and outside of the police boat, so the cops can work on their tans, none of it gets used. I am sure there would be cops lining up to get taken off the streets so they can watch a television screen all day.

Run_to_da_hills

timbyr wrote: »

Movies work like that. Real life doesn't. The technology for that sort of real time image processing is still in its infancy and usually requires a decent amount of computing power or preprocessed data.
GPS is receive only. You can't track a GPS device from the satellite system.

And you can't do accurate location using mobile signals either. Best they can do there is within a couple of hundred meters.


.

What we see in the movies yesterday could well be tomorrows reality, one only has to look at George Orwells, 1984. Who back then would have thought you could some day communicate and speak through your tV set?. Those unmanned Sifi UFO's are todays drones.

I always believe that the authorities are always one step ahead of anything that gets released to the public and this would go for mobile phone tracking etc.

timbyr wrote: »

Do you have the same issue with public CCTV networks?

I have big issue with urban blanket CCTV surveylance systems.

There they are developing intelligent systems that can go through 36 million immages per second.

When you incorporate the above along with phone tracking you can pick out individuals quite quickly and effectivly. God help those living in London if the MET decide on these drones.

troposphere

What did conspiracy theorists do before the internet when they could not link to some **** blog or youtube video?

Run_to_da_hills

troposphere wrote: »

What did conspiracy theorists do before the internet when they could not link to some **** blog or youtube video?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2119386/Could-governments-recognise-ANYONE-instantly-CCTV-Japanese-camera-scan-36-million-faces-second.html

Matt Holck

But that's a long way from fleets of "spy" drones monitoring every citizen.

many citizens have their own camera

I can't reach this google link without being redirected
China Web users turn keen eye back on government (R

Hayte

Manic Moran wrote: »

As opposed to being oppressed by taser-firing officers in person?

Honestly, the more human it is the better. Its different when you have to use force against someone and you have to look them in the eye. Its very different using force against someone when they are a speck on a tv screen. At that point you are treading dangerous crazy horse territory where real violence is so close to imaginary violence that you lose the distinction, like in videogames where action is so absolutely divorced from consequence that you don't ever consider it.

I'm not saying people can't do that in person either (that is, divorce action from consequence) but citizens have more capability to intervene. You see directly when someone is hurt and needs help, not another hurting.

The other thing I find concerning is importing and adapting military technology for policing. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but policing is meant to be a community thing and this is a soldiering thing. I wonder at its capacity to be used for the suppression of civil disobedience, to be used as a weapon against parts of society that need protection, not a beat down.

Be like Nutella

Some links

http://www.change.org/petitions/international-community-united-nations-and-united-states-congress-make-targeted-killing-internationally-accountable


Professor Christian Enemark : 'Predators, reapers and post-heroic war ' at The Australian National University on 9 August 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDqy6pj28&ytsession=5ZujpRohnNa_CT206UF8ywUsMDJy8klscHlEZXcrYfHYQavMemR_C3n0fO6APBzeELEGIFN3cj1ab8KcXGH76c6AIFaACSi9Qa1EBrGwgbPL-oBiSf5rCMzWG_A7541Ldafo2qzmQFCx14jwtDd4RYc-A_dgHMbJBaMfEEWLd2NWOY8W80k3LvC0NpTgnPWX9VOH0OydmnO0-jhK0kaxWDchETKQZFPR0zgs7wMKlUcdrs_dZRfHo86I0wNKqwIRQQNyJuiUb_JgcEYHcq6fJfi4udJCrfhk1epAdSh5b-s


Extrajudicial Killing Debate with Philip Alston & John Dehn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mFMyBFx38


The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, Prof Philip Alston
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1928963

Targeted Killings: The US, the UN and Accountability by Philip Alston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtAuI50vgs

InTheTrees

Pffft.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of pilots because I'm reading a lot of hysterical BS in this thread.

http://seaartcc.net/general/maps/images/SEA-CLASSB.jpg

InTheTrees

KyussBishop wrote: »

if there is an enormous fleet of drones in the country, they can be converted basically into a massive 'standing army' in a very short space of time, should the government wish to use them against people.

Er...wait... so the fact that the US military already has an enormous fleet of fully armed attack helicopters strategically deployed around the USA and backed up by a massive standing army shouldn't bother us at all but we should be getting all anarchist because of some remote controlled aeroplanes?

FTW:

http://www.thegunsandgearstore.com/model-fluted-barrel-system-inch-fluted-barrel-with-carry-case-p-28384.html

Be like Nutella

ok fair enough but you're not offering an opinion.. here's a few questions.

Would you categorize a drone operator as a pilot?

Do you think they should wear flight suits?

Are they combatants?

Are they at risk in any way?

Who are the heroes in this war?

Do you think the self-described Global War on Terror is a 'war' or an armed conflict at all?

Does armed conflict HAVE to involve combatants only and should there be risk on both sides?

Does the fact that the drone option has proved to be easier justify their use?

InTheTrees

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok fair enough but you're not offering an opinion.. here's a few questions.

Would you categorize a drone operator as a pilot?

Do you think they should wear flight suits?

Are they combatants?

Are they at risk in any way?

Who are the heroes in this war?

Do you think the self-described Global War on Terror is a 'war' or an armed conflict at all?

Does armed conflict HAVE to involve combatants only and should there be risk on both sides?

Does the fact that the drone option has proved to be easier justify their use?

A drone operator is a pilot (what else would they be?) and presumably they wear a pilots uniform. But they're not actually flying so I seriously doubt they would wear a flight suit(????) as in a g-suit.

Combatants? yes. Risk? no. Hero's? Unimportant.

"War on terror"? Handy catch phrase thats all.

Risk on both sides? Not required. If I'm going to fight someone I want as little risk as possible, that way i may win. Its not a duel for gods sake.

Be like Nutella

InTheTrees wrote: »

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok fair enough but you're not offering an opinion.. here's a few questions.

Would you categorize a drone operator as a pilot?

Do you think they should wear flight suits?

Are they combatants?

Are they at risk in any way?

Who are the heroes in this war?

Do you think the self-described Global War on Terror is a 'war' or an armed conflict at all?

Does armed conflict HAVE to involve combatants only and should there be risk on both sides?

Does the fact that the drone option has proved to be easier justify their use?

A drone operator is a pilot (what else would they be?) and presumably they wear a pilots uniform. But they're not actually flying so I seriously doubt they would wear a flight suit(????) as in a g-suit.

Combatants? yes. Risk? no. Hero's? Unimportant.

"War on terror"? Handy catch phrase thats all.

Risk on both sides? Not required. If I'm going to fight someone I want as little risk as possible, that way i may win. Its not a duel for gods sake.

Ok that's your opinion but fortunately there are laws to abide by.

Laws of Armed Conflict

International Human Rights Law

International Humanitarian Law

Obama has retained tight executive control over his drone war. The people who 'do' the drone strikes are in this grey area between the CIA and DOD (JSOC, USSOCOM, General Dynamics and a Drone only Airforce Wing operating out of Creech)

They should prob just nuke the whole of waziristan and fcuk laws and morality.

InTheTrees

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Ok that's your opinion but fortunately there are laws to abide by.

Laws of Armed Conflict

International Human Rights Law

International Humanitarian Law

And how does my opinion conflict with those documents??

None of them say anything about each side having to share an equal risk.

Be like Nutella

That is true but armed conflict is between combatants and how does one really categorize a drone operator (not pilot and they do wear flight suits if not with the g-suit element) as a combatant. It is important as the term combatant allows the US to act in self defence but how does that make sense when a non-combatant is combating a so called combatant.

Only the military can be involved in war or armed conflict but in this situation the CIA has been running the drone strikes with the help of JSOC/USSOCOM and with direct support from contractors namely General Atomics to carry out what the rest of the world consider extra judicial killings i.e. assassinations on par with the uncovered and subsequently shut down Phoenix program of the Vietnam war which assassinated thousands without the knowledge of the 'boys on the hill'.

The tight executive control of the at the time totally secret drone strike program which Obama personally arranged within weeks of entering office was for a very obvious reason. It allowed him to expand the use of drones without either media spotlight nor overbearing congressional oversight constraints.

The most incredible but stomach turning recent information is that the definition of 'combatant' within this 'quasi militant drone war department' is and I paraphrase 'males of military age' which simply attempts to forgive all collateral damage of any given strike within the ages of 18-35.

Within those documents as you say lies many definitions and categorizations of many elements of warfare which attempts to keep the acts of warfare within somewhat humane boundaries i.e. it is not acceptable for anyone to strike a hospital with a large munition just because an antenna is on the roof.

YOU may not care for these self inflicted limitations but most countries have signed up to all or many of these treaties and legal frameworks and as members of the UN understand that the UN can and does investigate instances when these boundaries have been crossed and the results of these investigations can subsequently end you up in the Hague.

There is no war on terror it is just a buzz word as you say. But, the US government especially in this case the executive branch i.e. justice dept, AG Eric Holder, Obama and his advisers (Brennan etc) require you to believe in this Global War On Terror (or GWOT as they call it in Washington) so that they can create a complex hierarchy of reasoning which begins with 'we are at war' and 'this war is asymmetric' and our enemies are everywhere and embedded within civilian population and 'present a clear and present danger at any time from 9/11 to forever' and are very hard to find and identify so we kind of have to guess a lot of the time but that's ok because it's all in 'self-defence' and seeing as 'they' killed 3000 of us on 9/11 that ANY action we take including decimating whole funeral parties with kids and women clearly present' is within limits of proportionality required under laws of conflict. The whole thing is basically we are the US, we are more powerful, we don't give a sh1t we can do what we want when we want and if you complain we'll just make up some arbitrary argument for what we do and give you very little information so that there is constantly an imbalance of data.

Matt Holck

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan on Monday strongly condemned a jump in U.S. drone strikes on its territory, using language that could increase tension between strategic allies already in dispute over military supply routes for NATO that Pakistan has closed.

Three drone strikes in as many days on suspected militants have killed 27 people, Pakistani intelligence officials say.

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-condemns-u-drone-strikes-154652091.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCunwzlr8ro

KyussBishop

InTheTrees wrote: »

Er...wait... so the fact that the US military already has an enormous fleet of fully armed attack helicopters strategically deployed around the USA and backed up by a massive standing army shouldn't bother us at all but we should be getting all anarchist because of some remote controlled aeroplanes?

FTW:

http://www.thegunsandgearstore.com/model-fluted-barrel-system-inch-fluted-barrel-with-carry-case-p-28384.html

Fully armed attack helicopters are not integrated into the police force and various other 'civilian' departments, and deployed throughout civilian society for everyday use on a regular basis.

These drones will become ubiquitous as their cost of manufacturing goes down, and the majority of them will not even need pilots as they will be largely automated (so one pilot will be able to control/coordinate effectively a whole fleet).

I don't know how big the standing army of attack helicopters is in the US, but it will be totally dwarfed by the eventual massive number of drones that will be deployed; these drones will be modular/compenentized as well, meaning you can much faster equip them with lethal weaponry than you can a police helicopter.


So there are several very big differences there in many areas: in the number that will be deployed, where they will be deployed (possibly throughout society), how many people you need to operate them (a fleet of them to a person possibly), and how quickly they can be converted for military use.

If a standing army of attack helicopters in the US is a credible threat to the democratic integrity of the country, it should be abolished (no indication that the scale of attack helicopters in the US is anywhere near such a threat); with drones, there is a very big threat of a huge amount being brought in for initially legitimate purposes, and then being rapidly converted into effectively a standing army for military purposes.

pegasus1

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you think drones would be deployed widescale? For starters, they're usually a little short on endurance.

Eh a drone especially the predator drone can fly for 24 hrs...;)

If drones are flown in high numbers either now or in the future, surely they will become more automated as time goes on...by way of economics...
It takes two to operate a drone, a pilot and a sensor operator...

Btw reading a book at the moment called 'Predator' by Matt j. Martin...The remote-control air war over Iraq and Afghanistan:A Pilot's story...very interesting read

Be like Nutella

book sounds interesting will check it out

InTheTrees

Be like Nutella wrote: »

YOU may not care...

Wait... er... the thread is about " Police set to arm drones with "non lethal weapons" on civilian populations"

But you're on some rant about the CIA assassinating people in the middle east? Which I agree is deplorable. And I can see that it may seem that I dont care just because I'm really commenting on the impracticability of using drones (more than one at a time anyway) in the already congested US airspace...

But yes, their use as a method of assassination is awful.

Oh, and the operators are undoubtedly qualified Pilots. These things arent toys.

troposphere

pegasus1 wrote: »

Eh a drone especially the predator drone can fly for 24 hrs...;)

If drones are flown in high numbers either now or in the future, surely they will become more automated as time goes on...by way of economics...
It takes two to operate a drone, a pilot and a sensor operator...

Btw reading a book at the moment called 'Predator' by Matt j. Martin...The remote-control air war over Iraq and Afghanistan:A Pilot's story...very interesting read

Even if they came down in price those type of drones like the predator are still going to be millions of dollars. The drone in the original post in this thread only has an endurance of 45min-3hrs depending on the engine they picked.

The mixed results highlight a glaring problem for Homeland Security officials who have spent six years and more than $250 million building the nation's largest fleet of domestic surveillance drones: The nine Predators that help police America's borders have yet to prove very useful in stopping contraband or illegal immigrants.

The border drones require an hour of maintenance for every hour they fly, cost more to operate than anticipated, and are frequently grounded by rain or other bad weather, according to a draft audit of the program last month by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.

Last year, the unmanned fleet flew barely half the number of flight hours that Customs and Border Protection had scheduled on the northern or southern borders, or over the Caribbean, according to the audit.

And the drones often are unavailable to assist border agents because Homeland Security officials have lent the aircraft to the FBI, Texas Rangers and other government agencies for law enforcement, disaster relief and other uses.

The audit slammed Homeland Security for buying two drones last year and ordering an additional $20.5-million Predator B system in Cocoa Beach, Fla., this year, saying it already owns more drones than it can utilize. Each drone costs about $3,000 an hour to fly.

"The big problem is that they are more expensive than traditional methods" of patrolling, said T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union of border agents.

To help pay for the drones, Customs and Border Protection has raided budgets of its manned aircraft. One result: Flight hours were cut by 10% for the P-3 Orion maritime surveillance planes that hunt smuggling ships on the West Coast and in the Caribbean.



The amount of illicit drugs seized in Predator raids is "not impressive," acknowledged Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force major general who heads the office that supervises the drones.

Last year, the nine border drones helped find 7,600 pounds of marijuana, valued at $19.3 million. The 14 manned P-3 Orions helped intercept 148,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $2.8 billion.

Continued

Run_to_da_hills

And it gets worse.

"As the Federal Aviation Administration helps usher in an age of drones for U.S. law enforcement agencies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) domestically by the U.S. military — and the sharing of collected data with police agencies — is raising its own concerns about possible violations of privacy and Constitutional law, according to drone critics.

A non classified US Airforce intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/the-age-of-drones-military-may-be-using-drones-in-us-to-help-police/