Drones for PSNI

Autonomous Cowherd

15 MARCH 2013

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is expected to buy two drones for the G8 summit in County Fermanagh in June, it emerged tonight.

The aircraft can relay live pictures from high quality cameras and are flown by operators remotely.

They could cost around €1.2m, it was reported.

World leaders like US President Barack Obama are expected to attend this summer's economic gathering, and a massive security operation is planned at the luxury Lough Erne golf resort which will host the conference.

The PSNI has told the Policing Board it wants to buy the drones for use during the G8 summit and afterwards to combat terrorism and crime, the BBC said.

The Board has to be briefed in advance about any planned purchase or deployment and that briefing will take place next week.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psni-to-buy-two-hightech-spy-drones-ahead-of-g8-summit-29133546.html


Gosh! I'm not so sure me likey the way things are going? Do we already have drones surveying this island? I ahve heard sneaky tales that they may be used to compensate for closures of police stations..

gurramok

Welcome to AfIrishstan

Nodin

...but what fleg will they fly?

CianRyan

What came to my mind?
"Cool!"

I don't see anything wrong with it really, there's already cameras everywhere so it's no different.

Autonomous Cowherd

The rapid advance in the technology means the cost of civilian drones has dropped to as little as €250. They can even be 'flown' via a smartphone.

Drones can be used for farm and forestry monitoring or even for aerial surveys of houses for property tax, one industry source confirmed.

They are also being used in the North to monitor larch trees, but could be used in future to snoop on farmers claiming too much in EU farm subsidies.

A Department of Agriculture spokeswoman in Dublin told the Herald that, while they are aware of developments in the field, "this Department does not propose to use the drone technology at the moment".

The Irish Aviation Authority confirmed that it has licensed eight users to operate unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or remotely piloted aircraft systems. All weigh less than 150kg.
http://www.herald.ie/news/rise-of-the-drones-29088035.html


I think this is interesting as a development. I live in a proposed fracking zone....which is being heavily resisted (Thankfully). I don't like the idea of these unmanned spies in the skies...

squod

1984. Only in 2013.


Whoever agrees to operate these social abominations is a cnut in my eyes .

Autonomous Cowherd

1
92
487
16
inShare
5

Starting in 2015, the skies above the United States will become infiltrated by a rare creature: drones. Also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), drones are currently forbidden from flying in U.S. airspace above 400 feet, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides a license. But thanks to a bill passed by Congress early this year to make these licenses easier to get, drones will likely become a part of everyday life for Americans.

While fun and futuristic, this coming reality unearths serious questions about privacy and personal liberty in the 21st century. A report published last week by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) shows that our laws are currently unprepared to deal with the privacy implications posed by the use of drones. The report (pdf) is an excellent read — at least if you’re a wonk like me. But if you don’t have time to peruse a 20-page CRS report, here are the 13 things you must know about the looming drone privacy apocalypse.

1. There will be 30,000 drones in the sky in less than 20 years



The FAA estimates (pdf) that within the next 15 years, more than 20,000 drones will take to the skies in the U.S., including drones operated by police, military, public health and safety agencies, corporations, and the public in general. That number is expected to jump to 30,000 within 20 years from today — a number the FAA refers to as “relatively small.” Currently, the FAA has only given out about 300 licenses to fly drones capable of cruising at more than 400 feet in the air.

2. Matters of privacy are all about “reasonableness”



The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees our right against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The key word here is “unreasonable” — and thanks to our rapidly changing technologies, its definition is in near-constant flux.

CRS researcher and legislative attorney Richard M. Thompson II, who authored the report on drones, explains in the report that “the reasonableness of drone surveillance [as considered by the courts] would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement.”

It’s this last part — “society’s conception of privacy” — that you should worry about on a daily basis, as it applies to the use of information gathered by everything from drones flying over our back yards to GPS capabilities in our smartphones to our Facebook profiles. Once society becomes generally “OK” with certain information becoming public, or becoming public in a certain way — once we think of these things as “reasonable — the Fourth Amendment protects us less.

3. The Fourth Amendment: It depends what the definition of “search” is



As with what can be considered “reasonable,” the definition of what constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment is a slippery beast. The Fourth Amendment provides for little wiggle room when it comes to activities performed in your home, behind closed doors and curtained windows. (No searches without a warrant there — most of the time, anyway.) But as soon as you leave the confines of your house, things start getting more complicated — and things get even worse when you consider surveillance that uses planes and helicopters. Throw drones in the mix and, well, the fine line across which surveillance by the state becomes “search” gets downright knotty.

Thompson’s CRS report explains that a court reviewing the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment will have to consider past cases that involved “privacy in the home, privacy in public spaces, location tracking, manned aerial surveillance, those involving the national border,” and instances when warrants aren’t needed to perform a “routine” search (like searching a car at a U.S. border), to determine the definition of a “search.”

4. Drones will have the ability to see through walls and ceilings



Thanks to technology like the Xaver 800 from Camero, which uses electromagnetic radar to construct 3D images of hidden objects, law enforcement and military personnel can now “see” through walls. Combine this with laser radar and thermal imaging techniques, and our homes practically have glass walls, as far as the police are concerned. Thompson estimates that similar technology will eventually be outfitted on drones, allowing them to see through ceilings and walls. The question before the courts will be: Without a warrant, is that reasonable?



Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/drones-congressional-research-service-report/#ixzz2NdwIJrp2
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook


This is just for those who think drones might be ''cool''......I don't know about you but i like my private life to be..er..well...private

humanji

Aren't they just cost effective replacements for the helicopters that normally fly over the G8? Quieter too, I'd hope.

Autonomous Cowherd

The technical sophistication and ability of such craft to stay airborne for lengthy periods of time combined with the ability to mount general surveillance of the population could be used to infringe on fundamental privacy rights, opponents say.
With drones the size of hummingbirds already available new capabilities are emerging all the time.
High-quality camera equipment capable of advanced thermal and infra-red imaging can see through walls and the technology exists for them to use facial recognition technology to track individuals based on their physical attributes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/drone-market-set-for-take-off-but-laws-governing-their-use-hit-turbulence-1.1251994


Well....whatever...but I just don't like it. I'm not saying very much can be done about it at this stage...but it is fairly Orwellian...imo

That price is LOLtastic. I love how it was mentioned within a few minutes of Britain and France wanting the arms embargo on Syria lifted. I'm an awful cynic.

Duff

Would it not be cheaper to get a remote control air plane and a handycam?

humanji

Duff wrote: »

Would it not be cheaper to get a remote control air plane and a handycam?

Or a guy on a particularly tall pair of stilts.

Autonomous Cowherd

humanji wrote: »

Aren't they just cost effective replacements for the helicopters that normally fly over the G8? Quieter too, I'd hope.

Possibly.

I also think however that an extension of the civilian application of such technologies will see us lose our freedoms of political association and resistance at some stage in the future..........silently hovering drones listening and watching beyond the walls...Hmmmm...me no likey.

squod

humanji wrote: »

Aren't they just cost effective replacements for the helicopters that normally fly over the G8? Quieter too, I'd hope.

Some of these yokes are the size of a packet of fags, can camp outside your gaff for weeks, get programmed to report certain things only. Or can just up and decide to kill you.

They're at best the equivalent of clampers and at worst the equivalent of schizophrenic terrorists.

My name is URL

It's basically just a flying camera.. don't see the big deal myself tbh.. and I'm usually fairly weary of Orwellian type stuff.

They're going to be spending a ****load of money on security anyway. If not on drones then on thousands of temporary CCTV systems which do the very same thing.

Autonomous Cowherd

My name is URL wrote: »

It's basically just a flying camera.. don't see the big deal myself tbh.. and I'm usually fairly weary of Orwellian type stuff.

They're going to be spending a ****load of money on security anyway. If not on drones then on thousands of temporary CCTV systems which do the very same thing.

well..afterwards they plan to use them to combat terrorism and crime. i have also seen it suggested that south of the border they could be used to compensate for lack of police stations etc...

I think they are a shyte idea. I don't like the thoughts of them at al...b ut i think there is probably little we can do about them.

Having said that ..IF they are to be a part of our future then there must be at least a reasonable debate about strict regulation of such technology that is very likely to infringe civil liberties....

FoxT

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

15 MARCH 2013

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is expected to buy two drones for the G8 summit in County Fermanagh in June, it emerged tonight.

Surely there are enough drones in the PSNI already?

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

i have also seen it suggested that south of the border they could be used to compensate for lack of police stations etc...

They should see about getting them equipped with lots of these, no more of this pussyfooting around with joyriders and burglers

squod

My name is URL wrote: »

It's basically just a flying camera..

Flying cameras are flying cameras. It's not like these yokes are going to be operated by some Indian call centre or a Police officer from down the local station.

humanji

squod wrote: »

Some of these yokes are the size of a packet of fags, can camp outside your gaff for weeks, get programmed to report certain things only. Or can just up and decide to kill you.

They're at best the equivalent of clampers and at worst the equivalent of schizophrenic terrorists.

But that's a slippery slope argument. It amounts to little more than scaremongering.

Autonomous Cowherd

Fair Enough

I guess from the tenor of the replies that I am about the only one who sees the enormous potential here for loss of civil liberties. No problem. Back to sleep. Sorry to mention it. Nothing to ''see'' here.......

humanji

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Fair Enough

I guess from the tenor of the replies that I am about the only one who sees the enormous potential here for loss of civil liberties. No problem. Back to sleep. Sorry to mention it. Nothing to ''see'' here.......

Well there's nothing wrong with being aware of their potential. But assuming that they must eventually be put into use to watch us 24/7 and/or kill us, is a bit of a jump.

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Fair Enough

I guess from the tenor of the replies that I am about the only one who sees the enormous potential here for loss of civil liberties. No problem. Back to sleep. Sorry to mention it. Nothing to ''see'' here.......

Could you explain to me exactly what civil liberties you think we're likely to loose? I don't see any of this as an issue as I don't really have anything to hide....I admit to some questionable porn viewing on occasion but that's hardly something the powers that be are likely to pursue.

Even if these things are going to be quite so prolific as some seem to think they won't stop you doing anything you're doing now. Unless of course it's illegal in which case that should be applauded no?

Autonomous Cowherd

humanji wrote: »

Well there's nothing wrong with being aware of their potential. But assuming that they must eventually be put into use to watch us 24/7 and/or kill us, is a bit of a jump.

No. I never suggested that.....I am not a conspiracytard

But i do suggest that if for example i became involved in anti-fracking local politics (just as an example)....how easy it would be with this technology to keep an eye on my tactics and opinions etc....

All very fine, as long as the government is doing everything you agree with. But what happens when someday they do something you wish to agitate against?

Grayson

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Fair Enough

I guess from the tenor of the replies that I am about the only one who sees the enormous potential here for loss of civil liberties. No problem. Back to sleep. Sorry to mention it. Nothing to ''see'' here.......

There was a potential when the phone was invented, or the public mail service.

It's no worse than a helicopter flying over head. Less noisy, cheaper. And probably safer too.

It's just technology replacing a function that a human used to do.

You get many helicopters observing you?

mattjack

squod wrote: »

Some of these yokes are the size of a packet of fags, can camp outside your gaff for weeks, get programmed to report certain things only. Or can just up and decide to kill you.

They're at best the equivalent of clampers and at worst the equivalent of schizophrenic terrorists.

Its ok , pal , I've got it all sorted for you.

https://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&authuser=0&biw=800&bih=485&q=tin+foil+hat&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSYhpgCxCo1NgEGgYIFwg9CEIMCxCwjKcIGjUKMwgBEg1QUVJnSN4D4wPXA0RAGiCguTaUHbhEFfanpfpoZOZJmUzWB9Jla8CzfK39eXXbaAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBOwrikEM&ei=JZFDUan-Leev7AaiyIHwCw&ved=0CCMQwg4

Autonomous Cowherd

wexie wrote: »

Could you explain to me exactly what civil liberties you think we're likely to loose? I don't see any of this as an issue as I don't really have anything to hide....I admit to some questionable porn viewing on occasion but that's hardly something the powers that be are likely to pursue.

Even if these things are going to be quite so prolific as some seem to think they won't stop you doing anything you're doing now. Unless of course it's illegal in which case that should be applauded no?

How about the right to free association? The right to religious privacy? The right to have sex in my garden? The right to walk around naked? The right to think and speak anti-establishment opinions? The right to be a private human being? Just for starters

humanji

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

How about the right to free association? The right to religious privacy? The right to have sex in my garden? The right to walk around naked? The right to think and speak anti-establishment opinions? The right to be a private human being? Just for starters

And you're just assuming the worst case scenario. You're assuming it'll be abused. It's a possibility, but not a certainty. Your ignoring all positive aspects and concentrating on only the extreme negatives.

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

How about the right to free association? The right to religious privacy? The right to have sex in my garden? The right to walk around naked? The right to think and speak anti-establishment opinions? The right to be a private human being? Just for starters

You'll still have all those rights.....

Some serious leap of 'logic' you're making that the PSNI / AGS using drones some how equates you not being able to walk around stark bollock naked (in private) when you feel like it, or associate who and when you feel like.

Believe it or not it's entirely possible (likely even) that these things might just be used for the purposes of good? You know...spotting illegal dumping, tracking people that need tracking, environmental surveys...

Autonomous Cowherd

Grayson wrote: »

There was a potential when the phone was invented, or the public mail service.

It's no worse than a helicopter flying over head. Less noisy, cheaper. And probably safer too.

It's just technology replacing a function that a human used to do.

You get many helicopters observing you?

Wrong.
Sorry
A phone can only ''reach'' you by invitation. Likewise mail. i have to agree to be part of the transaction.

It is not the same as a helicopter. A drone can hover for long periods of time..if you had a helicopter hovering over your back yard for any significant portion of time surely to goodness you might think wtf and query it....

I live on the border. Helicopters monitoring are not unknown. Used to be extremely common in fact.

My name is URL

wexie wrote: »

I don't see any of this as an issue as I don't really have anything to hide

You would say that.. all tucked up nice and cozy behind a pseudonym!

Autonomous Cowherd

It's true. Maybe I do have stuff to hide. I am not sold on the way things are at this time in history. I disagree with a lot of stuff. I rage against the machine. I think those in power are generally self-serving, corruptible, ego-maniacal blackguards.So...Bite me.

mattjack

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Wrong.
Sorry
A phone can only ''reach'' you by invitation. Likewise mail. i have to agree to be part of the transaction.

It is not the same as a helicopter. A drone can hover for long periods of time..if you had a helicopter hovering over your back yard for any significant portion of time surely to goodness you might think wtf and query it....

I live on the border. Helicopters monitoring are not unknown. Used to be extremely common in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz3Cc7wlfkI

wexie

My name is URL wrote: »

You would say that.. all tucked up nice and cozy behind a pseudonym!

lol.....right...and you're posting under your real name of course, you must get lots of funny looks at airports?

Let me explain that so, I've nothing to hide from the authorities, however as has become abundantly clear there would appear to be a rather large amount of what I would deem to be 'nutcases' on boards, who, while it's entertaining to engage in discussion with them, I'd much prefer not to have around my house, family and kids....and as quite a few of them seem to be unstable enough as to be considered wildly unpredictable I'll stay quite nicely tucked up behind my 'nomme de guerre'

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I disagree with a lot of stuff. I rage against the machine. I think those in power are generally self-serving, corruptible, ego-maniacal blackguards.So...Bite me.

Absolutely agree with you on that one, however when it comes to our politicians, civil servants etc. I can't help but believe in Hanlon's razor

(Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity)

mattjack

wexie wrote: »

lol.....right...and you're posting under your real name of course, you must get lots of funny looks at airports?

Let me explain that so, I've nothing to hide from the authorities, however as has become abundantly clear there would appear to be a rather large amount of what I would deem to be 'nutcases' on boards, who, while it's entertaining to engage in discussion with them, I'd much prefer not to have around my house, family and kids....and as quite a few of them seem to be unstable enough as to be considered wildly unpredictable I'll stay quite nicely tucked up behind my 'nomme de guerre'

Brilliant .

The drone is watching you.

Autonomous Cowherd

wexie wrote: »

lol.....right...and you're posting under your real name of course, you must get lots of funny looks at airports?

Let me explain that so, I've nothing to hide from the authorities, however as has become abundantly clear there would appear to be a rather large amount of what I would deem to be 'nutcases' on boards, who, while it's entertaining to engage in discussion with them, I'd much prefer not to have around my house, family and kids....and as quite a few of them seem to be unstable enough as to be considered wildly unpredictable I'll stay quite nicely tucked up behind my 'nomme de guerre'

Well, I am not unstable. I rarely post here...or engage in discussions. i'm here for the funnies in you laugh you lose I maintain a very integrated and healthy family life..and i don't even watch porn
But i would ask you to consider one thing...Is there, in any conceivable likelihood, ever ever ever the possibility in your whole long-legged-life that you might stray beyond the borders of what is considered at thsi present moment to be legal and acceptable? On ANY grounds...ever?
And if so..if ever you find yourself beyond the borders of what is presently and arbitrarily considered acceptable, what would you do if you found your right to civil resistance was curtailed by the existence of technology that would monitor such resistance?

Chuck Stone

How long before someone delivers a piece of semtex on one of these things?

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Well, I am not unstable. I rarely post here...or engage in discussions. i'm here for the funnies in you laugh you lose I maintain a very integrated and healthy family life..and i don't even watch porn
But i would ask you to consider one thing...Is there, in any conceivable likelihood, ever ever ever the possibility in your whole long-legged-life that you might stray beyond the borders of what is considered at thsi present moment to be legal and acceptable? On ANY grounds...ever?
And if so..if ever you find yourself beyond the borders of what is presently and arbitrarily considered acceptable, what would you do if you found your right to civil resistance was curtailed by the existence of technology that would monitor such resistance?

I see what you're trying to get at and I have to concede the possibility absolutely is there. However I think it's still a long ways of (if ever) happening and I would like to think that it won't be an overnight thing.

I quite firmly believe that our government are morally bankrupt, inept, completely devoid of any insight or empathy for the general population however I don't believe any of them are actually genuinely evil.

If things every start moving towards the scenario you described then obviously I'll have to reconsider but for the moment I see anything that will help combat crime etc. etc. as a good thing. my main concern is raising two healthy, well adjusted and educated children in a safe environment.

If it came to it I suspect there are plenty of hunting rifles and shotguns around here that will make short work of any drones.

(and for the record I wasn't referring to you as a nutcase, or unstable, I do however believe it's an incredibly poor idea to post on any (other than professional) forum's under your own name for the reasons mentioned)

Autonomous Cowherd

wexie wrote: »

I see what you're trying to get at and I have to concede the possibility absolutely is there. However I think it's still a long ways of (if ever) happening and I would like to think that it won't be an overnight thing.

I quite firmly believe that our government are morally bankrupt, inept, completely devoid of any insight or empathy for the general population however I don't believe any of them are actually genuinely evil.

If things every start moving towards the scenario you described then obviously I'll have to reconsider but for the moment I see anything that will help combat crime etc. etc. as a good thing. my main concern is raising two healthy, well adjusted and educated children in a safe environment.

If it came to it I suspect there are plenty of hunting rifles and shotguns around here that will make short work of any drones.

(and for the record I wasn't referring to you as a nutcase, or unstable, I do however believe it's an incredibly poor idea to post on any (other than professional) forum's under your own name for the reasons mentioned)

I understand wexie. My main task for the last 25 years has been raising stable happy kids And I would not post under my name either

But on the point in case, a government does not have to be malicious for evil to reign. Stupid will do.

wexie

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I understand wexie. My main task for the last 25 years has been raising stable happy kids And I would not post under my name either

But on the point in case, a government does not have to be malicious for evil to reign. Stupid will do.

Well in that case we're all bleedin doomed....

:eek:

Autonomous Cowherd

wexie wrote: »

Well in that case we're all bleedin doomed....

:eek:

“Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results.”
― Margaret Atwood, Surfacing



Yeah....lol...I guess so..

Gummy Panda

squod wrote: »

1984. Only in 2013.


Whoever agrees to operate these social abominations is a cnut in my eyes .

I'll operate them as long as I can report in sounding like Kevin McKidd

shedweller

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

But on the point in case, a government does not have to be malicious for evil to reign. Stupid will do.

Stupid will LET evil reign.

Grayson

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Wrong.
Sorry
A phone can only ''reach'' you by invitation. Likewise mail. i have to agree to be part of the transaction.

It is not the same as a helicopter. A drone can hover for long periods of time..if you had a helicopter hovering over your back yard for any significant portion of time surely to goodness you might think wtf and query it....

I live on the border. Helicopters monitoring are not unknown. Used to be extremely common in fact.

A phone can be tapped into, your mail can be read. That's what I meant. It's another way to observe someone.

squod

humanji wrote: »

And you're just assuming the worst case scenario. You're assuming it'll be abused. It's a possibility, but not a certainty. Your ignoring all positive aspects and concentrating on only the extreme negatives.

How do you imagine these yokes humanji? Try bear in mind that the people responsible for the security of the G8 summit are not going to source their equipment from bleedin' PC World or Smyths toy shop.

Be like Nutella

Drones have been used to unjustifiably slaughter a few thousand people, mostly in Pakistan. Very few of them real terrorists threats, most killed have been low level taliban or militant or low level AQ guys and hundreds of completely innocent women and kids and anyone in their vicinity. The US admins of Bush and now Obama have gotten away with using them in a completely undemocratic and unaccountable way for a decade now and it's a disgrace which the world is just catching up to as we speak. That's what a lot of people think of when they see the word drones so it's natural to have an aversion to them. Obama has basically ordered the FAA to open US airspace to drones of various kinds in the next few years and with a backdrop of patriot act type infringements on peoples rights of privacy etc it is perfectly reasonable to have a problem with police forces ordering drones to use in civilian airspace for surveillance and it has absolutely no parallel with police helicopters so to use that argument is ignorant in my view... and provably so. The knee jerk reaction by those who know nothing about the rise of drone technology and its use around the world and its proposed and likely uses in the future serves no purpose. To 'fear' the use of drones in the future is nothing to do with conspiracy bullsh1t and more to do with being genuinely concerned about the abuse of a whole new paradigm in technology. And there is great beneficial uses in line for drones also. Drones can map out forest fires efficiently and can enable powerful software approaches to various problems. But they can also be used by police forces to infringe upon peoples right to privacy. This is nothing to do with the 'expectation of privacy' as some suggest. A building using CCTV to protect from theft etc or street cameras use in keeping public safe on public streets is an entirely different subject. There are genuine fears that Drones may be loaded with Cemtex and used as flying bombs. You can easily buy very powerful drone systems form private companies which can fly with a load 10 lbs or more over hundreds of meters of range (they cost about 20-40k I can give you a link if you want). Drone use needs to be treated very seriously and regulated to within an inch of its life or drones will naturally be abused in any way imaginable by all manner of people, groups, government agencies (in the US for instance) and just saying 'ah sure they're just like helicopters or RC planes whats the worry here) is not going to help the period of transition we are now in which will see drones of all sizes and types and capabilities spread into almost every area of industry and life. Drones are being armed right now with tazer rounds and there are many police forces right across the US and the world buying and ordering and training up on drones of all types. The problem some people myself included have with this process is that the legal structures are not in place to deal with this transition just as the laws of conflict were not in place to limit the disgraceful use of drones in Pakistan and other places in the last 8-10 years. I know a lot of people here love to slag off the slightly conspiracy sounding folks on boards.ie it's only natural I've done it myself but anyone who thinks it's a small pointless harmless issue is just lacking in knowledge. It's a complex subject and it'll effect war and privacy and all kinds of issues forever from this day forward. Right now I could buy drones privately and put a rotating surveillance package together using GPS drone software and a laptop and keep a very close HD eye on your every move if I wanted without you knowing. So imagine what a police force or Intelligence agency could do if they were motivated. Right now the existing laws do not cover all the aspects of the potential abuses by civilians or state of drones to invade your privacy and now is the time to get legislation passed which comprehensively protects our privacy from the states or civilians or corporate use of drones. Journalism courses in the US are teaching drone use as we speak (can provide link), right now police forces are training and testing drones which fire various non-lethal rounds (link if you want), right now DARPA has boasted about its ability to keep 24/7/365 ultra HD 1.8 gigapixel surveillance on an entire city area zoom-able in real time (or ingeniously at any time after that) with its new 'Persistent Stare ARGOS system' the power and implications of which will blow you away if you have any interest in technology Google it : )

Drones come in all sizes and types. The most likely system the PSNI are after is fairly small and has a shortish range and will most likely provide a controllable constant loitering video camera in the sky which will scan for threats over the G8 meeting period and I have no problem at all with this likelihood, however, IF that drone use in this special circumstances (which could conceivably be ranked as a possible international terrorist threat zone/period) was then uses as an excuse to order and use further drones of various types on an on-going basis in the north and becomes another part of their day to day arsenal then there are very real issues in play including as I say privacy issues and state over-reach issues including right to public protests etc.. If we walk into that sort of situation completely blind and just except drone use in our state without asking questions or ensuring our right to privacy is not unjustifiably infringed upon then we are acting very naively and ignorant. So you can't just blast 'drone concerns' away with ignorant anti-conspiracy-nut comments as you may like to. If you want to argue it - bring it on but a debate is a debate and requires supporting points.... that's what forums are for.

We don't have to contend with major issues like drone strikes as they do in the US (although personally drone strikes will effect great parts of the world in decades to come and so should be a matter of interest to anyone who cares about that sort of thing) but even on our small Island the police and intelligence departments as they exist will always try and use new tech to get ahead of criminals and RIRA etc.. and although their intentions are good and in our collective interest as we know the road to hell is paved etc..

The 'I've nothing to hide' argument is so crap at this stage and it attempts to bully those with valid points by creating a false binary, an arbitrary construct which serves no purpose - kinda like the War on Terror phrase.

“To me, it’s Big Brother in the sky,” said Dave Norris, a city councilman in Charlottesville, Va., which this month became the first city in the country to restrict the use of drones. “I don’t mean to sound conspiratorial about it, but these drones are coming, and we need to put some safeguards in place so they are not abused.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/technology/rise-of-drones-in-us-spurs-efforts-to-limit-uses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


It's all about closing doors to potential future abuses.


"..The ACLU counts 21 states considering bills to regulate drones. State lawmakers appear to be reacting to recent moves by the federal government to bring the technology into civilian life..."

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/22/172696814/as-police-drones-take-off-washington-state-pushes-back

We need to put in place laws which completely prohibit the use of drones by cops on the basis that there is no case for using them... in the extraordinary situation where we may absolutely need one (such as this G8 meeting) then a court should grant a one time use for a specific purpose which has a time limit and which warrants very specific use relative to a very specific threat i.e. a terrorist attack on the general area of the meeting which may benefit from a loitering drone. I wouldn't say a court would grant it but that should be the only route to using one.

When drones dramatically lower the price (not just monetarily speaking) of, and greatly enables you, to collect information on people or groups, the potential for that ability to be abused by a police force or Intel department is increases greatly. 20 US states are currently putting through some form of legislation which will limit drone use with peoples privacy rights in mind as well as many other legal issues surrounding evidence collection and judge supplied warrants etc.. True the US is a completely different story but that doesn't mean we don't bother thinking about the ramifications of drone use here in the Rep or up the north. The issues are scalable. As should be our approach. Once the door is opened it will become much harder to restrict drone use in the future and too late for 'man we shoulda thought about this more'. That's why a minority here have fears and concerns - you can brushem off much as you like and call them CT heads or paranoid eejits OR you can just go read about it... and I don't mean to sound like a dik saying it I genuinely think you'd have a better perspective if some of you just Googled it for 15 mins.

Here's a list of 81 entities looking for FAA approval to buy and fly drones in public airspace in the US - you think some legislation should be composed to appropriately limit how they will use their drones or not? Remember corporations have only profit in mind and if they can get away with using drones while infringing upon your rights because there's not enough legislation there to limit their actions and they stand to make a profit - do you think they'll give a sh1t?

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/faa_coa_list-2012.pdf


thedaily.com 1 year ago

"..The CEO of Vanguard Defense Industries, Michael Buscher, said at this point non-lethal devices like flares, rubber bullets and tear gas are only sold on military versions of the drone. The company has researched using such devices on police drones, but he said Vanguard has received no requests for the capabilities and so far hasn’t made them available...."

from Vanguards site Re their Shadow Hawk Police drone:

"...A ShadowHawk® can maintain aerial surveillance of an area (i.e. house, vehicle, person, etc.) at 700 feet without being heard or seen..."

"...The ShadowHawk® can fly day-after-day, night-after-night, in adverse weather conditions, for up to 3 hours at a time, on an accurate flight path, under computer control...."

"...Network Centric approach in which data from each ShadowHawk® in flight updates a server computer in real time, allowing users to view the latest information, via the Internet from any terminal designated by the operators, (i.e. the Chief of Police as well as the Mayor of a municipality can view an incident in real time from their respective offices.)..."

No chance of these types of system being abused by anyone I suppose : )

The shadowhawk is nothing compared to what's in the pipline for police forces around the world and it can autonomously fly and track a runnign person or a vehicle at 50mph and do this for 3 hours for 11% the cost of running a chopper and feed directly to the internet. There are MAJOR privacy issues in play.... if you don't see it yet you simply haven't learned enough about it.

I'd just prefer if they closed the doors on potential abuses now and that's not unreasonable.

What's already possible with drones is far beyond what you think - the vids are all over the net. TED talk videos, countless private companies selling surveillance packages with incredible ability from 10k upwards. The autonomous ability already is staggering and as the tech in the military advances that will translate to civilian application in both good and bad ways. There's companies planning to deliver goods with drones across the US, there's even a taco company who wants to deliver tacos by drone I'm dead serious : ) There's going to be drones at 70,000 feet which stay up for 5 years!!! and can literally video an entire city from one single point of loiter literally 24/7/365 with definition beyond current comprehension i.e. The Persistent Stare ARGOS system - this is a system which records everything it sees straight down like a satellite except doesn't go away and you can go back in time over the 'compound lens' footage and zoom in on any part of the city right down to reading a number plate in any square yard of an entire city at any point in the past in pure HD video - don't believe me? Sounds like CT nonsense right...look it up! Utterly Mind blowing! There's drones which can be armed with auto shotguns, Taser rounds, beanbags, rubber bullets, tear gas you name it - already tested! and searchable on Google! Drones can be flown autonomously for hours in swarms of as many as you like using cutting edge software - there's a TED talk where drones fly in swarms building a fukin complex wall of bricks working as a team in perfect coordination which will leave you with your mouth open as it did me. There's drones the size of humming birds which can fly (like a humming bird) and record HD video in silence at night using IR. If you're clueless on drones and you love technology I'd highly recommend getting into it - it's absolutely fascinating and it really is the beginning or a whole new paradigm in robotic/military/autonomous technology and that's why there are major issues in play. That's why the Op and myself and others around here have major concerns with drones as a general concept and not just the ones that blow Pakistani families to shreds.... or very rarely a terrorist who poses an Imminent risk to the US (which I can at least understand).

The PSNI get to use one drone on the G8 tomorrow and where will we be in 5 years time if laws and regs are not in place to protect peoples privacy etc..

You may have nothing to hide but that has fuk all to do with anything.

fasttalkerchat

These drones are basically just a high powered camera in the air. There will be a huge invasion of privacy for people on both sides of the border but they are nothing like he ones used to kill people in the Middle East!

Razleavy

€1.2 million for 2? They must be stupid beyond belief! The average Joe could put the same type of multirotor together for €2000-10000 with the majority of that cost dependent on the quality of camera used! No wonder countries are falling apart!

Gatling

Razleavy wrote: »

€1.2 million for 2? They must be stupid beyond belief! The average Joe could put the same type of multirotor together for €2000-10000 with the majority of that cost dependent on the quality of camera used! No wonder countries are falling apart!

No chance ,There not air fix kits

A decent camera and relevant software and include FlIR your looking at 60-70 grand for basic off the shelf stuff and that doesn't include the airframe and engine

qaf

The US spent $250 million on drones for the Mexican border and they ended up costing $3000/hour to operate and had to have 1hr of maintenance for every flight hour. They were also grounded a lot because of weather and regular aircraft were still doing a much better job of interdicting drugs and illegals. Obviously these are smaller drones but I doubt people have to be too worried about drones. A lot of those local law enforcement agencies in the US that got smaller drones end up barely using them after the new toy factor wears off.