"I don't understand all the comments about the Big Brother thing."

[Anti Federalist]

So says the spokesman for some industry lobby group that is pushing for more drones in US airspace.

Whatever you call it, it's not freedom.


Pressure builds for civilian drone flights at home

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DRONES_AT_HOME?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Heads up: Drones are going mainstream.

Civilian cousins of the unmanned military aircraft that have tracked and killed terrorists in the Middle East and Asia are in demand by police departments, border patrols, power companies, news organizations and others wanting a bird's-eye view that's too impractical or dangerous for conventional planes or helicopters to get.

Along with the enthusiasm, there are qualms.

Drones overhead could invade people's privacy. The government worries they could collide with passenger planes or come crashing down to the ground, concerns that have slowed more widespread adoption of the technology.

Despite that, pressure is building to give drones the same access as manned aircraft to the sky at home.

"It's going to be the next big revolution in aviation. It's coming," says Dan Elwell, the Aerospace Industries Association's vice president for civil aviation.

Some impetus comes from the military, which will bring home drones from Afghanistan and wants room to test and use them. In December, Congress gave the Federal Aviation Administration six months to pick half a dozen sites around the country where the military and others can fly unmanned aircraft in the vicinity of regular air traffic, with the aim of demonstrating they're safe.

The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities. In a report last October, the Pentagon called for flights first by small drones both solo and in groups, day and night, expanding over several years. Flights by large and medium-sized drones would follow in the latter half of this decade.

Other government agencies want to fly drones, too, but they've been hobbled by an FAA ban unless they first receive case-by-case permission. Fewer than 300 waivers were in use at the end of 2011, and they often include restrictions that severely limit the usefulness of the flights. Businesses that want to put drones to work are out of luck; waivers are only for government agencies.

But that's changing.

Congress has told the FAA that the agency must allow civilian and military drones to fly in civilian airspace by September 2015. This spring, the FAA is set to take a first step by proposing rules that would allow limited commercial use of small drones for the first time.

Until recently, agency officials were saying there were too many unresolved safety issues to give drones greater access. Even now FAA officials are cautious about describing their plans and they avoid discussion of deadlines.

"The thing we care about is doing that in an orderly and safe way and finding the appropriate ... balance of all the users in the system," Michael Huerta, FAA's acting administrator, told a recent industry luncheon in Washington. "Let's develop these six sites - and we will be doing that - where we can develop further data, further testing and more history on how these things actually operate."

Drones come in all sizes, from the high-flying Global Hawk with its 116-foot wingspan to a hummingbird-like drone that weighs less than an AA battery and can perch on a window ledge to record sound and video. Lockheed Martin has developed a fake maple leaf seed, or "whirly bird," equipped with imaging sensors, that weighs less than an ounce.

Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves.

Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows.

Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential. The FAA is investigating whether The Daily, a digital publication of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., used drones without permission to capture aerial footage of floodwaters in North Dakota and Mississippi last year. At the University of Nebraska, journalism professor Matt Waite has started a lab for students to experiment with using a small, remote-controlled helicopter.

"Can you cover news with a drone? I think the answer is yes," Waite said.

The aerospace industry forecasts a worldwide deployment of almost 30,000 drones by 2018, with the United States accounting for half of them.

"The potential ... civil market for these systems could dwarf the military market in the coming years if we can get access to the airspace," said Ben Gielow, government relations manager for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group.

The hungriest market is the nation's 19,000 law enforcement agencies.

(The standing army once again. Make no mistake, it will only be short matter of time before they are armed drones. - AF)

Customs and Border Patrol has nine Predator drones mostly in use on the U.S.-Mexico border, and plans to expand to 24 by 2016. Officials say the unmanned aircraft have helped in the seizure of more than 20 tons of illegal drugs and the arrest of 7,500 people since border patrols began six years ago.

Several police departments are experimenting with smaller drones to photograph crime scenes, aid searches and scan the ground ahead of SWAT teams. The Justice Department has four drones it loans to police agencies.

"We look at this as a low-cost alternative to buying a helicopter or fixed-wing plane," said Michael O'Shea, the department's aviation technology program manager. A small drone can cost less than $50,000, about the price of a patrol car with standard police gear.

Like other agencies, police departments must get FAA waivers and follow much the same rules as model airplane hobbyists: Drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, stay below an altitude of 400 feet, keep away from airports and always stay within sight of the operator. The restrictions are meant to prevent collisions with manned aircraft.

Even a small drone can be "a huge threat" to a larger plane, said Dale Wright, head of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association's safety and technology department. "If an airliner sucks it up in an engine, it's probably going to take the engine out," he said. "If it hits a small plane, it could bring it down."

Controllers want drone operators to be required to have instrument-rated pilot licenses - a step above a basic private pilot license. "We don't want the Microsoft pilot who has never really flown an airplane and doesn't know the rules of how to fly," Wright said.

Military drones designed for battlefields haven't had to meet the kind of rigorous safety standards required of commercial aircraft.

"If you are going to design these things to operate in the (civilian) airspace you need to start upping the ante," said Tom Haueter, director of the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation safety office. "It's one thing to operate down low. It's another thing to operate where other airplanes are, especially over populated areas."

Even with FAA restrictions, drones are proving useful in the field.

Deputies with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office in Colorado can launch a 2-pound Draganflyer X6 helicopter from the back of a patrol car. The drone's bird's-eye view cut the manpower needed for a search of a creek bed for a missing person from 10 people to two, said Ben Miller, who runs the drone program. The craft also enabled deputies to alert fire officials to a potential roof collapse in time for the evacuation of firefighters from the building, he said.

The drone could do more if it were not for the FAA's line-of-sight restriction, Miller said. "I don't think (the restriction) provides any extra safety," he said.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, north of Houston, used a Department of Homeland Security grant to buy a $300,000, 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone for its SWAT team. The drone has a high-powered video camera and an infrared camera that can spot a person's thermal image in the dark.

"Public-safety agencies are beginning to see this as an invaluable tool for them, just as the car was an improvement over the horse and the single-shot pistol was improved upon by the six-shooter," said Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel, who runs the Montgomery drone program.

The ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun, according to its maker, Vanguard Defense Industries of Conroe, Texas. The company doesn't sell the armed version in the United States, although "we have had interest from law-enforcement entities for deployment of nonlethal munitions from the aircraft," Vanguard CEO Michael Buscher said.

The possibility of armed police drones someday patrolling the sky disturbs Terri Burke, executive director of the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The Constitution is taking a back seat so that boys can play with their toys," Burke said. "It's kind of scary that they can use a laptop computer to zap people from the air."

A recent ACLU report said allowing drones greater access takes the country "a large step closer to a surveillance society in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which focuses on civil liberties threats involving new technologies, sued the FAA recently, seeking disclosure of which agencies have been given permission to use drones. FAA officials declined to answer questions from The Associated Press about the lawsuit.

Industry officials said privacy concerns are overblown.

"Today anybody- the paparazzi, anybody - can hire a helicopter or a (small plane) to circle around something that they're interested in and shoot away with high-powered cameras all they want," said Elwell, the aerospace industry spokesman. "I don't understand all the comments about the Big Brother thing."

[flightlesskiwi]

i'm suggesting this to you all... READ READ READ.

hxxp://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2012/02/printing-drones-by-the-sheet.html


Printing Drones by the Sheet (or how we get to tens of billions of drones by 2020)

Pratheev Sreetharan on the old way of making micro-drones: "You'd take a very fine tungsten wire and dip it in a little bit of superglue. Then, with that tiny ball of glue, you'd go in under a microscope like an arthroscopic surgeon and try to stick it in the right place."

The FAA currently estimates that there will be 30,000 drones licensed to operate in US skies by 2020. It's a misleading estimate.

Why?

It only counts large, professional drones (and even that estimate is low). It doesn't count all of the small/micro drones operating below ~400ft and at slower airspeeds. How many micro-drones will there be by 2020?

Tens of millions (tens of billions if there is warfare or repression driving it -- and given the problems we are facing, there will be) and they will look something like this (depicted: The Mobee):

Mobee

How do we get to that number?

Simple. You print them by the sheet.

M-1

Here's the latest step in that development. The microrobotics team at Harvard discovered a new manufacturing process that allowed them to go from

assembling drones by hand a month ago with an 85% error rate to
manufacturing them by the sheet with nearly zero defects/failures in assembly.

Think about that for a second.

Modern tools for rapid prototyping are so precise (< 5 microns of error across the entire sheet), cheap (that a small drone lab can access them), and fast (design it on the computer lead straight to manufacturing) that nearly everyone can do this (or will be soon).

Some more detail

One of the manufacturing breakthroughs was the use of folding techniques (ala origami and children's pop up books) and hinges to cleanly assemble a 3D shape from a 2D sheet. Very slick.

________________

>>> Hey, I'm going to be putting up some info on drone defense soon. Make sure you subscribe to the Resilient Communities newsletter (basic is free) to get it.


this sh*t is not syfy.

[freeforall]

Where does this information originate from?

I ask because I know very little on the subject and your posts often freak me out.

eta: I realize you posted links, but how does the author of the article learn this information? Does DHS announce these things?

[Anti Federalist]

Where does this information originate from?

I ask because I know very little on the subject and your posts often freak me out.

Who's posts, mine or FLK's?

[freeforall]

Who's posts, mine or FLK's?

Both I guess. (like I said, this is a fairly new subject to me) Do we know what they planto do with drones because the government admits it freely?

[CaptUSA]

I really don't see any way around this. This is the future, folks. It's scary.

You don't own your airspace. At what point does it become trespassing? These things can zoom in really close, so they don't need to even be that close to you.

I'd imagine the future holds drones monitoring everything that happens everywhere. Not just the government, but private concerns as well. The term "underground" will take on a whole new literal meaning as it will be the only place where your activities are not open to the public.

Does anyone really foresee a way around this? Police need a search warrant to come onto your property, but not to look into your property from the street. It seems like these things will pass constitutional muster. It's scary as hell.

[Uriel999]

Problem:

http://images.asme.org/MEMagazine/Articles/2010/January/21429.jpg

Solution:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H6HGPxHSIjw/TH47DKW9ERI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/3o7BgPZX2Uk/s1600/793px-Flak18-36.jpg

Now just gotta find an old anti-aircraft cannon on gunbroker... :D

[flightlesskiwi]

Both I guess. (like I said, this is a fairly new subject to me) Do we know what they planto do with drones because the government admits it freely?

the world is headed in a certain direction.

and people who have previously dabbled in helping steer the world in that direction sometimes see the light, and decide to inform others about it.

go to John Robb's website (the global guerrillas link) and read his "about me" page. there are many just like him-- who still have ties to the defense industry-- who are saying the exact same thing. i just enjoy the way John says it (plus a personal friend of mine is a personal friend of his).

[flightlesskiwi]

CaptUSA.. peruse the website i posted.

you are right, there is NO was around it.

but arming yourself with as much knowledge as you can can help you prepare to deal with it and may help you push back.


I really don't see any way around this. This is the future, folks. It's scary.

You don't own your airspace. At what point does it become trespassing? These things can zoom in really close, so they don't need to even be that close to you.

I'd imagine the future holds drones monitoring everything that happens everywhere. Not just the government, but private concerns as well. The term "underground" will take on a whole new literal meaning as it will be the only place where your activities are not open to the public.

Does anyone really foresee a way around this? Police need a search warrant to come onto your property, but not to look into your property from the street. It seems like these things will pass constitutional muster. It's scary as hell.

[Anti Federalist]

Both I guess. (like I said, this is a fairly new subject to me) Do we know what they planto do with drones because the government admits it freely?

Well, without giving away too much information and speaking for FLK, I'll let her answer, but she has first hand knowledge of this on a personal level.

Me?

I just scan the news on regular basis.

What do they plan to do?

Put us all under 24/7 surveillance, that's what.

There will be no place to run, no place to hide, no privacy, ever, anywhere. You will be watched, in real time, every second of every day.

And since you cannot complete a day without breaking a law, code, rule, regulation or edict, you will be aggressively prosecuted.

To the point where, in the very near future, there will only be two types of people: guard or convict.

It's called a prison/police state.

That's assuming they don't arm these atrocious machines and just decide to start vaporizing us whenever they feel like it, like they already do overseas.

Since government has openly declared us to be the enemy, so I find this scenario equally possible.

[tod evans]

Hmmmmmmm,
Wonder what happens when some "hacker" takes control of one of these non-lethal drones?

Also wonder what type of equipment it takes to jam the operating signal so the drone is a lead weight?

[freeforall]

AF - It's like I just watched a sci fi movie whie reading your post.

I was going to ask what your thoughts are to those that say "if you're not doing anything wrong, than why would it matter?" but I think you already answered my question.

[Anti Federalist]

I was going to ask what your thoughts are to those that say "if you're not doing anything wrong, than why would it matter?" but I think you already answered my question.

Just in case anybody isn't clear on this:

Yes, you ARE doing something wrong, I guarantee it.

And regardless, 24/7 surveillance by unknown "authorities" is not freedom, so lets just drop all the "land of the free" and "they're fighting for our freedoms" nonsense.

[flightlesskiwi]

Just in case anybody isn't clear on this:

Yes, you ARE doing something wrong, I guarantee it.

And regardless, 24/7 surveillance by unknown "authorities" is not freedom, so lets just drop all the "land of the free" and "they're fighting for our freedoms" nonsense.

+1776

but when you publicly declare that, be ready to be ostracized.

[pcosmar]

Hmmmmmmm,
Wonder what happens when some "hacker" takes control of one of these non-lethal drones?

Also wonder what type of equipment it takes to jam the operating signal so the drone is a lead weight?

EMP

[Anti Federalist]

+1776

but when you publicly declare that, be ready to be ostracized.

Yeah, I know, I get the hairy eyeballs all the time for not showing proper "respect" during anthems, pledges and other shows of allegiance to the state.

Luckily, I'm a big guy, with what Mrs. AF calls an "intimidating demeanor", so it's always been limited to just the dirty looks.

[CaptUSA]

Just in case anybody isn't clear on this:

Yes, you ARE doing something wrong, I guarantee it.

And regardless, 24/7 surveillance by unknown "authorities" is not freedom, so lets just drop all the "land of the free" and "they're fighting for our freedoms" nonsense.I imagine that the vast majority of people will be allowed to continue to do things wrong - until you become inconvenient. By that I mean, that unless you do something big, they'll probably let you slide until you start making too much noise. Then, you will be erased. They will have enough evidence on every human to convict at will.

If, by some chance, you are following their laws completely, they'll examine your behavior and create a new law to ensure that you will violate it.

Again, though... Is there any possible way to prevent this? By constitutional means? It seems unlikely. This seems inevitable.

[Anti Federalist]

EMP

God, I hope someone develops something like that.

That is the only defense, fry this shit midair.

[tod evans]

EMP


SMILE!

[Anti Federalist]

Again, though... Is there any possible way to prevent this? By constitutional means? It seems unlikely. This seems inevitable.

Yes, we amend the constitution to prohibit it.

If you could get anybody to give a shit.

[CaptUSA]

Yes, we amend the constitution to prohibit it.

I suppose, but I don't even think that could happen. There would have to be certain lines that you cannot cross with surveillance. I can't even envision what kind of language would be required to prevent this.

[VanBummel]

I suppose, but I don't even think that could happen. There would have to be certain lines that you cannot cross with surveillance. I can't even envision what kind of language would be required to prevent this.

I would say something like: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Then again, something tells me this wouldn't make much of a difference...

[Anti Federalist]

I suppose, but I don't even think that could happen. There would have to be certain lines that you cannot cross with surveillance. I can't even envision what kind of language would be required to prevent this.

Difficult no doubt.

Not to mention the fact that private corporations will use this to spy on us and develop marketing profiles.

That will then be sold to government.

[Voluntary Man]

Well, without giving away too much information and speaking for FLK, I'll let her answer, but she has first hand knowledge of this on a personal level.

Me?

I just scan the news on regular basis.

What do they plan to do?

Put us all under 24/7 surveillance, that's what.

There will be no place to run, no place to hide, no privacy, ever, anywhere. You will be watched, in real time, every second of every day.

And since you cannot complete a day without breaking a law, code, rule, regulation or edict, you will be aggressively prosecuted.

To the point where, in the very near future, there will only be two types of people: guard or convict.

It's called a prison/police state.

That's assuming they don't arm these atrocious machines and just decide to start vaporizing us whenever they feel like it, like they already do overseas.

Since government has openly declared us to be the enemy, so I find this scenario equally possible.

I'd suggest "trustee," instead of "guard," for the sake of precision. ;)

[VBRonPaulFan]

i'm suggesting this to you all... READ READ READ.

hxxp://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2012/02/printing-drones-by-the-sheet.html

this sh*t is not syfy.

and who says the US doesn't make anything anymore :rolleyes:

to bad the only shit we still make oppressive and based in war

[freeforall]

Just in case anybody isn't clear on this:

Yes, you ARE doing something wrong, I guarantee it.

And regardless, 24/7 surveillance by unknown "authorities" is not freedom, so lets just drop all the "land of the free" and "they're fighting for our freedoms" nonsense.

I do understand this, but hear this argument often. I'm not always sure how to answer without being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

[pcosmar]

I do understand this, but hear this argument often. I'm not always sure how to answer without being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Ignorance CAN be corrected.
Stupidity is terminal.

some just can not be reached or helped.

[flightlesskiwi]

I do understand this, but hear this argument often. I'm not always sure how to answer without being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

i happen to believe that US foreign policy is inextricably tied to US domestic policy. *tin foil hat* actually, i happen to think that us foreign policy is something like a lab test for what the policy writers want to do here domestically.

anyway, there is plenty of good, solid, factual information out there. but, like i said, even if you present a strong, logical, rational argument based on factual evidence, prepare to be dismissed and ostracized.

as AF has pointed out over and over, most people don't want freedom.

to be cheesy with it, but i do say that life imitates art and there is a reason these films did so well and provoked a whole slew of philosophical discussions:


The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it

[Brian4Liberty]

a hummingbird-like drone that weighs less than an AA battery and can perch on a window ledge to record sound and video. Lockheed Martin has developed a fake maple leaf seed, or "whirly bird," equipped with imaging sensors, that weighs less than an ounce.

Here's a predictable future law, which will be proposed by the likes of Lieberman, Graham and McCain: "It is a felony offense to knowingly or accidentally damage in any way a government or Police drone, no matter what the size or appearance of such drone." Mowing your lawn will be a felony if you run over a leaf or seed camouflaged drone...

[GunnyFreedom]

Life imitates art, and art imitates life, it's all a grand ouroboros devouring our whole society and way of life.

Nevertheless, I eagerly anticipate the next great dystopia that may wake a few more souls to the crushing exil pressing against us even now.

As to the drones, I admit EMP was one of my first thoughts, but the danger there is damaging your own equipment, including that necessary to deploy the EMP, therefore using that method, all they have to do is send a couple more until you are out of equipment.

So I think the more sustainable answer is to hijack the signal and create an EM no-fly-zone via signal jamming or hacking and command counteraction.

[GunnyFreedom]

Here's a predictable future law, which will be proposed by the likes of Lieberman, Graham and McCain: "It is a felony offense to knowingly or accidentally damage in any way a government or Police drone, no matter what the size or appearance of such drone." Mowing your lawn will be a felony if you run over a leaf or seed camouflaged drone...

VERY predictable, unfortunately. It won't matter if the surveillance equipment is on or above your property, or if you can't tell whether it is operated by government officials or an enterprising thief. Such details are irrelevant to the security state. Except, I don't think they will say it is a felony, because then they would have to prosecute the offender in open court. Instead, they will indicate that such people who engage in defense against drones are probable terrorists, and thus all the warrantless provisions of PATRIOT, NDAA, and EEA come into play. Black bag, Gitmo, Extraordinary rendition, and life in prison without charge or Habeas Corpus.

[bolil]

Life imitates art, and art imitates life, it's all a grand ouroboros devouring our whole society and way of life.

Nevertheless, I eagerly anticipate the next great dystopia that may wake a few more souls to the crushing exil pressing against us even now.

As to the drones, I admit EMP was one of my first thoughts, but the danger there is damaging your own equipment, including that necessary to deploy the EMP, therefore using that method, all they have to do is send a couple more until you are out of equipment.

So I think the more sustainable answer is to hijack the signal and create an EM no-fly-zone via signal jamming or hacking and command counteraction.

Wouldn't this be seen as an act of war/terrorism/aggression? Btw that quote about life and art has been a idea giving me torment. Art is but the manifestation of an ideal that at its best imitates life... and most people live life with intent of realizing their ideals. Reality is unavoidable and ideals are unattainable. I used to think that art was the only place where reality and ideals could mingle... further thought and I think that art strives to imitate life as life strives to imitate the ideals only, truly, attainable in the imagination fueled world of art. Anyways...

[Romulus]

Damaging a drone will be seen as an act of terror of course...

Better not mow the leaves with a lawn mower this year..

[GunnyFreedom]

Wouldn't this be seen as an act of war/terrorism/aggression? Btw that quote about life and art has been a idea giving me torment. Art is but the manifestation of an ideal that at its best imitates life... and most people live life with intent of realizing their ideals. Reality is unavoidable and ideals are unattainable. I used to think that art was the only place where reality and ideals could mingle... further thought and I think that art strives to imitate life as life strives to imitate the ideals only, truly, attainable in the imagination fueled world of art. Anyways...

Of course it will be seen as an act of terrorism. If we end up in the place we are discussing, I would not be the least bit surprised to see some agency launch a drone into a persons space -- not because they have a need to surveil the target, but because they know he is likely to take it down and for the specific purpose of it getting taken down so they can go in via PATRIOT and snatch someone up on Indefinite Detention as a terrorist.

That's the catch-22 that anybody will be under once we get into the reality of a drone surveillance and control society. That's exactly why any countermeasure I would deploy would be within the boundaries of my property and below 100 feet from the deck, not citing surveillance concerns but the very real danger inherent to home, animals, crops, and property that such a flight profile represents.

As to writing fiction, I am planning on writing a modern technological dystopia myself, as such works (like the Matrix) seem to me to wake up more people than the distance they push towards it's fulfillment. Therefore it 'does more good than harm' much like George Orwell's 1984 has likely made more people wary of the surveillance state than accepting of it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it was just 2-3 weeks ago that AF and I were predicting this shit coming. I'm almost surprised it's come so fast, but considering how fat "defense" industries are getting off of sucking the life out of the economy...not so surprising. :( Don't worry, citizens. It'll just be like The Guardians from "We". Move along and go back to watching the boob tube. Nothing to see here.

[GunnyFreedom]

Damaging a drone will be seen as an act of terror of course...

Better not mow the leaves with a lawn mower this year..

We have a grace period between now and when the drones are officially authorized for domestic deployment. The powers that be will be more interested in maintaining plausible deniability than taking out people who damage the drones. We'd end up on "the list" of course, but most of us are already on that list anyway, and certainly anybody under drone surveillance is already on the list.

Once the drones are officially authorized, then they will no longer have to maintain the secrecy that they are actually deployed, and then is when mowing the leaves etc will become a danger for being blackbagged.

But for now, if your mower destroys leaf and seed drones, the powers that be are going to be more interested in maintaining their clandestine operations a secret than taking down the people who are fighting back. That window of grace will close once the drones are officially authorized, of course.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think it was just 2-3 weeks ago that AF and I were predicting this shit coming. I'm almost surprised it's come so fast, but considering how fat "defense" industries are getting off of sucking the life out of the economy...not so surprising. :( Don't worry, citizens. It'll just be like The Guardians from "We". Move along and go back to watching the boob tube. Nothing to see here.

Hey! One of my campaign buttons is simply a stylized "We" (as in "We the People") on a kind of NC Flag background....

[donnay]

What gives me solace is we have lots of good people on the inside. Lot's of ingenious people on the outside. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction! In the end, evil will not prevail!

[heavenlyboy34]

Hey! One of my campaign buttons is simply a stylized "We" (as in "We the People") on a kind of NC Flag background....
Well, most people (especially in this country) probably won't make the connection now-even though it directly inspired 1984, Brave New World, Anthem, and others. The original title when published was "Мы" (Russian for "We", nominative case).

[flightlesskiwi]

What gives me solace is we have lots of good people on the inside. Lot's of ingenious people on the outside. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction! In the end, evil will not prevail!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again.

+1776.

also: may as well go out with yer boots on.

[Acala]

Yes, this is creepy and all that, but let me just add a little sunshine here.

It is always a bad mistake to misjudge the strength of your foe. And when you are the underdog, it is PARTICULARLY bad to OVER estimate the stength of the opressor because it leads to timidity.

So let's review a few facts. Yes, the Federal government is huge, well-equipped, and would love nothing more than to have unrestrained power over you and your countrymen. But remember, outside the military, 98% of Federal government workers are useless for the job of running a brutal empire. They are nearly all at least one of the following: incompetent, stupid, lazy, cowardly, only interested in an easy paycheck, or actually opposed to tyranny. There IS a tiny fraction that is both clever, ambitious, and ruthless. But they are in command of a nearly useless organization that will fold up in the face of any real resistance. Just think back on virtually ANY major government domestic operation - they are nearly ALWAYS a fiasco. They are incapable of filling potholes in an effective manner, I doubt their ability to run a techno-dystopian empire. Add to that the very high probability that the era of easy money that has allowed the government to grow so large and buy so much equipment is coming to an end and they will be lucky to keep the lights on after the economic house of cards collapses.

So chin up. Unless the US military can be turned against the people, I think the chance of an effective, iron-fisted dictatorship running this country is limited.

[fatjohn]

Yawn, want to be horrified? Check out some 3-4 year old public technology.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFguLwUT5lg

By now, every damn fly is a spy in the sky.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd suggest "trustee," instead of "guard," for the sake of precision. ;)

Quite right.

Done.

[Anti Federalist]

Rep worthy, both of these:


VERY predictable, unfortunately. It won't matter if the surveillance equipment is on or above your property, or if you can't tell whether it is operated by government officials or an enterprising thief. Such details are irrelevant to the security state. Except, I don't think they will say it is a felony, because then they would have to prosecute the offender in open court. Instead, they will indicate that such people who engage in defense against drones are probable terrorists, and thus all the warrantless provisions of PATRIOT, NDAA, and EEA come into play. Black bag, Gitmo, Extraordinary rendition, and life in prison without charge or Habeas Corpus.


Of course it will be seen as an act of terrorism. If we end up in the place we are discussing, I would not be the least bit surprised to see some agency launch a drone into a persons space -- not because they have a need to surveil the target, but because they know he is likely to take it down and for the specific purpose of it getting taken down so they can go in via PATRIOT and snatch someone up on Indefinite Detention as a terrorist.

That's the catch-22 that anybody will be under once we get into the reality of a drone surveillance and control society. That's exactly why any countermeasure I would deploy would be within the boundaries of my property and below 100 feet from the deck, not citing surveillance concerns but the very real danger inherent to home, animals, crops, and property that such a flight profile represents.

As to writing fiction, I am planning on writing a modern technological dystopia myself, as such works (like the Matrix) seem to me to wake up more people than the distance they push towards it's fulfillment. Therefore it 'does more good than harm' much like George Orwell's 1984 has likely made more people wary of the surveillance state than accepting of it.

[Anti Federalist]

to be cheesy with it, but i do say that life imitates art and there is a reason these films did so well and provoked a whole slew of philosophical discussions:


The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it



Not cheesy at all.

There is wisdom in well written fiction, otherwise we would not quote Juvenal or Dickens or Shakespeare or Orwell or Twain.

[noneedtoaggress]

Wasn't that the same people who wrote V for Vendetta?

:toady:

[Anti Federalist]

Wasn't that the same people who wrote V for Vendetta?

:toady:

Yes.

[Czolgosz]

Now just gotta find an old anti-aircraft cannon on gunbroker... :D


Hmmm, w/ the current state of rocketry, gps systems, ladar, mobile computing (your phone), etc. etc. I think a small team could build a reasonably cheap anti-drone device.


And I reported myself. So :p

[donnay]

Yes, this is creepy and all that, but let me just add a little sunshine here.

It is always a bad mistake to misjudge the strength of your foe. And when you are the underdog, it is PARTICULARLY bad to OVER estimate the stength of the opressor because it leads to timidity.

So let's review a few facts. Yes, the Federal government is huge, well-equipped, and would love nothing more than to have unrestrained power over you and your countrymen. But remember, outside the military, 98% of Federal government workers are useless for the job of running a brutal empire. They are nearly all at least one of the following: incompetent, stupid, lazy, cowardly, only interested in an easy paycheck, or actually opposed to tyranny. There IS a tiny fraction that is both clever, ambitious, and ruthless. But they are in command of a nearly useless organization that will fold up in the face of any real resistance. Just think back on virtually ANY major government domestic operation - they are nearly ALWAYS a fiasco. They are incapable of filling potholes in an effective manner, I doubt their ability to run a techno-dystopian empire. Add to that the very high probability that the era of easy money that has allowed the government to grow so large and buy so much equipment is coming to an end and they will be lucky to keep the lights on after the economic house of cards collapses.

So chin up. Unless the US military can be turned against the people, I think the chance of an effective, iron-fisted dictatorship running this country is limited.

I am not so worried about our military it's the foreign military who will be sent under the auspices of UN Peace Keeping that has me much more concerned. Most of our military is occupied by fighting monsters abroad.

[Anti Federalist]

I hope you're right, and maybe you are, but...

I am inclined less to think about the unlikely probability of such a thing happening and more focused on the grim and deadly consequences should it happen.

In no case is it an impossibility.


Yes, this is creepy and all that, but let me just add a little sunshine here.

It is always a bad mistake to misjudge the strength of your foe. And when you are the underdog, it is PARTICULARLY bad to OVER estimate the stength of the opressor because it leads to timidity.

So let's review a few facts. Yes, the Federal government is huge, well-equipped, and would love nothing more than to have unrestrained power over you and your countrymen. But remember, outside the military, 98% of Federal government workers are useless for the job of running a brutal empire. They are nearly all at least one of the following: incompetent, stupid, lazy, cowardly, only interested in an easy paycheck, or actually opposed to tyranny. There IS a tiny fraction that is both clever, ambitious, and ruthless. But they are in command of a nearly useless organization that will fold up in the face of any real resistance. Just think back on virtually ANY major government domestic operation - they are nearly ALWAYS a fiasco. They are incapable of filling potholes in an effective manner, I doubt their ability to run a techno-dystopian empire. Add to that the very high probability that the era of easy money that has allowed the government to grow so large and buy so much equipment is coming to an end and they will be lucky to keep the lights on after the economic house of cards collapses.

So chin up. Unless the US military can be turned against the people, I think the chance of an effective, iron-fisted dictatorship running this country is limited.

[flightlesskiwi]

I am not so worried about our military it's the foreign military who will be sent under the auspices of UN Peace Keeping that has me much more concerned. Most of our military is occupied by fighting monsters abroad.

and the fact that when people are in want, sometimes they sell each other out.

and to be "in want" in this country... well... it wouldn't take much.

[Anti Federalist]

and the fact that when people are in want, sometimes they sell each other out.

and to be "in want" in this country... well... it wouldn't take much.

"I'm gonna KILL you, Judas Iscariot Hogwallop"!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dg6DpEAscU&feature=related

[Brian4Liberty]

"I'm gonna KILL you, Judas Iscariot Hogwallop"!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dg6DpEAscU&feature=related

Possibly one of the best movies ever made!

"She loved him up and turned him into a horny toad!"
"Seeya in the funny papers..."

[Titus]

This is very scary almost certainly for public activities. The drones could monitor almost everywhere we are... this would be infinitely worse than red light cameras.

For the home, it is debatable whether or not the government could use these to look in homes. The court seemed split. Justice Scalia would almost certainly be against it. This is one of the few times he comes down on the side of liberty. For more, see Crawford and its progeny. However, there are some that would declare this not to be a search. The issue for the majority was whether or not the technology was available to the public. I would not expect the Supreme Court to approve something that gives the government the ability to continuously monitor at will. The recent GPS case decided by the court 9-0 should help minimize fears.

While the Supreme Court has made some arguably bad decisions (Citizens United), they generally are one of the last places we can go to protect our rights. The public cannot pressure the courts for more fines and the courts can reign in excessive activities by the police. This is the reason why electing a liberty minded judge is important.

[SL89]

"deleted" :D

[heavenlyboy34]

This is very scary almost certainly for public activities. The drones could monitor almost everywhere we are... this would be infinitely worse than red light cameras.

For the home, it is debatable whether or not the government could use these to look in homes. The court seemed split. Justice Scalia would almost certainly be against it. This is one of the few times he comes down on the side of liberty. For more, see Crawford and its progeny. However, there are some that would declare this not to be a search. The issue for the majority was whether or not the technology was available to the public. I would not expect the Supreme Court to approve something that gives the government the ability to continuously monitor at will. The recent GPS case decided by the court 9-0 should help minimize fears.

While the Supreme Court has made some arguably bad decisions (Citizens United), they generally are one of the last places we can go to protect our rights. The public cannot pressure the courts for more fines and the courts can reign in excessive activities by the police. This is the reason why electing a liberty minded judge is important.
Incorrect. A court not accountable to a jury is not just. If you believe in "original intent", the SCOTUS cases should be held before a jury (and the jury should have the right of nullification). One thing John Jay deserves credit for is his respecting the right to have a case heard before a jury.

[Anti Federalist]

Possibly one of the best movies ever made!

"She loved him up and turned him into a horny toad!"
"Seeya in the funny papers..."

Agreed, classic.

"Well, ain't this place a...geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"

[flightlesskiwi]

Agreed, classic.

"Well, ain't this place a...geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"

makes it even more humorous when you actually live in such a place.


and bump.