Drones for PSNI

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

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.

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.

€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!

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.

I see shares in Tinfoil have gone up:pac:

Enzo Echoing Windbag wrote: »

Our defence forces use drones very successfully oversea's, I'd have absolutely no objections to the guards using them here.

Makes a lot of sense, particularly for our air corp & navy protecting our coastlines.

Yea I believe they were the first country to attempt to fly a drone from Central Africa to Europe.

An unmanned surveillance drone being used by Irish peacekeepers in Chad which went missing after being deployed in the desert may have tried to fly back to the Curragh, 3000 miles away.

One theory is that the drone, which is programmed to return to base when contact is severed with its Ground Control Station (GCS), may have still had the co-ordinates of the Curragh camp in its computer programme, rather than the Irish headquarters near Goz Beida in south-eastern Chad.