Stalin would be proud.

What a farce of a country you have become.

A nation of sheep.

================================================== ===

Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones

http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-...llance-drones/

Infowars.com
Sept 28, 2012

Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.

Only 36 percent said that they “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose”
police use of drones, according to the survey.

The poll also found that only one third of Americans say they are
significantly concerned about their privacy being eroded by the adoption
of drones by police forces throughout the country.

Thrity-five percent of respondents said they were “extremely concerned”
or “very concerned” when asked if they believed that police departments’
use of drones for surveillance would impact their privacy.

Almost exactly the same number, 36 percent, noted that they were “not
too concerned” or “not concerned at all”, while twenty-four percent were
neutral on the issue, saying they were only “somewhat concerned” about a
potential loss of privacy.

FAA documents recently obtained and released by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation have confirmed that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones
will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of
the American people.

Furthermore, thousands of pages of FAA experimental drone flight records
that were obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR)
detail just how complicated and risky it would be to operate thousands
of unmanned arial vehicles safely without spending billions of dollars.

Following intense lobbying, almost exclusively by defense contractors,
Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA
predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation
in US skies by 2020.

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.


They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal? Sounds like the drones
would be cheaper...

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime is
in progress - to support ground operations.

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.

When you give someone in authority (like police) a hammer, pretty soon
everything starts to look like a nail.

Sounds like the drones would be cheaper...

Tell that to ...

AAI Corporation
Advanced Technologies and Engineering (ATE)
Aeronautics Defense Systems
AeroVironment
Aerovision
Alenia Aeronautica
American Dynamics Flight Systems
Aurora Flight Sciences
BAE Systems
Baykar Machine
Bell Helicopter
Blue Bird Aero Systems
Boeing Defence, Space & Security
Cassidian
Cyberflight
Dassault Aviation
Denel Aerospace Systems
DRS Technologies
EMT
Flight Solutions
Flying Robots
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems
General Dynamics
Gulfstream Aerospace
Hydra Technologies
Innocon
Insitu
Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)
Kaman Aerospace Corporation
Korea Aerospace Industries
L3 BAI Aerosystems
Lockheed Martin
Microdrones
Mission Technologies (MiTex)
MMIST
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
Patria Systems
Pioneer UAV
Prioria
Proxy
Qinetiq
Rafael
Raytheon
Rheinmetall Defence Electronics
Ruag Aerospace - Aviation & Space
Saab Aerosystems
Sagem Défense Sécurité
Schiebel
Selex Galileo
Singapore Technologies Aerospace (ST Aerospace)
Swift Engineering
Swiss UAV
Thales
Ucon System
United States Naval Research Laboratory
Urban Aeronautics
Warrior (Aero-Marine)
Yamaha Motor Company
Zala Aero

In article , says...

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime is
in progress - to support ground operations.

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.


Well I am not a criminal, so have no problem with that.

Note many businesses like Walmart have cameras all over
the store and parking lot. No problem with that. Actually
they frequently catch thieves who rip off people in the
parking lot or people who damage other people's cars.

Another thought on this. A danger to other aircraft??? I don't know if there
is any avoidance control. WW




"Major Drone" wrote in message ...

Stalin would be proud.

What a farce of a country you have become.

A nation of sheep.

================================================== ===

Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones

http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-...llance-drones/

Infowars.com
Sept 28, 2012

Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.

Only 36 percent said that they €œstrongly oppose€� or €œsomewhat oppose€�
police use of drones, according to the survey.

The poll also found that only one third of Americans say they are
significantly concerned about their privacy being eroded by the adoption
of drones by police forces throughout the country.

Thrity-five percent of respondents said they were €œextremely concerned€�
or €œvery concerned€� when asked if they believed that police departments
use of drones for surveillance would impact their privacy.

Almost exactly the same number, 36 percent, noted that they were €œnot
too concerned€� or €œnot concerned at all€�, while twenty-four percent were
neutral on the issue, saying they were only €œsomewhat concerned€� about a
potential loss of privacy.

FAA documents recently obtained and released by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation have confirmed that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones
will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of
the American people.

Furthermore, thousands of pages of FAA experimental drone flight records
that were obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR)
detail just how complicated and risky it would be to operate thousands
of unmanned arial vehicles safely without spending billions of dollars.

Following intense lobbying, almost exclusively by defense contractors,
Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA
predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation
in US skies by 2020.

In article , Police Man
wrote:

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime is
in progress - to support ground operations.
Nonsense. Helicopters to regular patrols, too in many cities.



Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.

Sorta like a cop in a car on patrol.


Sounds like the drones would be cheaper...

Tell that to ...


Why? YOu aren't really trying to suggest that drones cost more to
buy, equip, maintain, and even staff than choppers are you?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sep 29, 2:52*pm, Major Drone wrote:
Stalin would be proud.

What a farce of a country you have become.

A nation of sheep.

================================================== ===

Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones

http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-...pport-domestic...

Infowars.com
Sept 28, 2012

Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.

Only 36 percent said that they strongly oppose or somewhat oppose
police use of drones, according to the survey.



You can't blame them. They are afraid. It is such a lawless, violent
and crime ridden place.
I imagine the 36% will shoot them down anyway.

On Sep 29, 4:23*pm, "WW" wrote:
Another thought on this. A danger to other aircraft??? I don't know if there
is any avoidance *control. *WW

"Major Drone" *wrote in ...

Stalin would be proud.

What a farce of a country you have become.

A nation of sheep.

================================================== ===

Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones

http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-...pport-domestic...



Following intense lobbying, almost exclusively by defense contractors,
Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA
predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation
in US skies by 2020.

So there will need to be 30,000 people to operate them?
Where's the money coming from?

On Sep 29, 4:46*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Police Man
wrote:

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. *What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime is
in progress - to support ground operations.

* *Nonsense. Helicopters to regular patrols, too in many cities.



Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.

* * * Sorta like a cop in a car on patrol.

Sounds like the drones would be cheaper...

Tell that to ...

* * *Why? *YOu aren't really trying to suggest that drones cost more to
buy, equip, maintain, and even staff than choppers are you?
--
As these are additional, of course it will cost more.
The cops will sit on their fat arses in the office instead of being on
the streets.
Safer for them?

More taxpayers money wasted.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a
crime is in progress - to support ground operations.

(put a space or blank line between what you're quoting and your response
to make it more readable)

Nonsense. Helicopters to regular patrols, too in many cities.

This essay discusses the effectiveness of routine helicopter patrols:

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/socio...er-patrols.php

The emphasis of the various studies mentioned in the essay is to measure
the effectiveness of the routine helicopter patrol as a crime
*prevention* tool. Given the facts that helicopters are very expensive
to operate (even compared to fixed-wing aircraft) it's not clear how
many US police departments operate routine helicopter patrols today.

The essay mentions there are more than 500 police agencies operate over
2000 helicopters worldwide. I couldn't find anything mentioning the
numbers in the US, but a ballpark figure would probably be 1000 police
helicopters (50% of the global total).

I would guess that only the largest cities in the US operate routine
helicopter patrols, and probably only along major highways as they
perform traffic enforcement duties (looking for speeders, erratic or
agressive driving, etc).

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around
and look for evidence of criminal activity.

Sorta like a cop in a car on patrol.

The idea of the cop on patrol is nice, but most likely cops go from one
call to another, with little time in between to simply patrol.

And I have to wonder how effective a drone helicopter would be at night
as a crime deterrant or even a crime-discovery / observation tool. The
safe operation of these drones at night (VFR) is also questionable.

Sounds like the drones would be cheaper...

Tell that to ...


Why? YOu aren't really trying to suggest that drones cost
more to buy, equip, maintain, and even staff than choppers are
you?

Are you daft enought to think that police departments would REPLACE
their existing helicopters with drones?

The 30,000 drones expected in the air by 2020 will be IN ADDITION to
what the police already have.

And what do you think 30,000 drones will cost, compared to 1,000 manned
police helicopters used (mostly) on a contingency-basis today?

On 9/29/2012 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.


They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal? Sounds like the drones
would be cheaper...


Except you are trying to discuss it with schizophrenic name changing
home guy...

Bill wrote:
In article , says...

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime
is in progress - to support ground operations.

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.


Well I am not a criminal, so have no problem with that.

Seems that a lot of Germans said something similar to the Gestapo


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin
Franklin

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:53:18 -0400, George
wrote:

On 9/29/2012 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.


They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal? Sounds like the drones
would be cheaper...


Except you are trying to discuss it with schizophrenic name changing
home guy...

Emphasis on "schizophrenic".

Major Drone:

I'm sorry. You said something but I couldn't understand what you were saying for all the noise in here. Could you please repeat the question?

Canada's where you wanna live. Canada has purple mountain magesties and amber waves of grain. Canadians also make better beer, better cigarettes, better rye whisky, better abductees and better hockey than Americans.

I'm not either. I'm what you'd would probably call a "grey" or a "space alien" or an "extraterrestrial" or, for crying out loud, a "Martian" (LOL), but I live in Canada. I think most people would agree that it's not exactly the same thing as being a "Canadian". So, I don't pay income tax and I expect the Canadian government would prefer it stayed that way rather than admit that the "Martians" living in Canada don't pull their weight. (smirk)

Canada has the Aurora Borealis, or the Northern Lights, so Canadians don't get all twisted out of shape if they see a light in the sky, and that makes my job easier.

Anyhow, just me to you, don't believe what you read in the newspapers or online. Lots of us like to pull jokes on you "potato heads". If you remember that Chicken McNugget that bore a striking resemblance to the Virgin Mary and sold on e-Bay for $12,000, that was me.

To keep your sanity, just remember:
1. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean that it's paranormal, or voodoo or from outer space. you guys have much to learn about your planet, and a lot of what you're chaulking up to space aliens or "ghosts" is in your own head or perfectly natural stuff that you don't understand yet.
2. Just cuz it's a light in the sky, don't mean it's intelligent. When I see those films you guys make showing lights in the sky whizzing all over the place, I can't help but wonder how you can see an underlying intelligence in bizzare behaviour like that.
3. Just because we'd like to eat you, don't mean we're going to.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:56:22 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Bill wrote:
In article , says...

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime
is in progress - to support ground operations.

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around and
look for evidence of criminal activity.


Well I am not a criminal, so have no problem with that.

Seems that a lot of Germans said something similar to the Gestapo


"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a
Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was
not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I
was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin
Franklin

responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...-d-715320-.htm
DA wrote:

Major Drone wrote:

Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

I hope police departments that do deploy them are very well insured! I would imagine that these things will drop far more frequently than actual piloted aircraft and typical homeowner's insurance does not cover the damage caused by falling aircraft. I had always assumed that to operate an aircraft you would have to carry a pretty hefty liability insurance and that, as well as the fact that damage causing events are extremely rare, has been figured into the price and the coverage of typical homeowners insurances over the years.

Now, with drones flying overhead supposedly 24/7 and no pilot onboard to correct a situation and perhaps prevent or limit the damage to life and property (perhaps even by sacrificing his own, as did happen before), the chance of aircraft damage may become significant enough for insurance companies to start charging extra for it. If that happens, it would be very interesting to watch the civil discourse that will unfold. Presumably, the deployment of drones can cost both the police departments as well as the consumers huge amounts of money, and a nice benefit to insurance companies.

I don't believe anything can stop eventual domestic deployments of drones (not necessarily for law enforcement) but it will take years to figure out all the laws and insurances and cost benefits, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Not as straightforward as to buy another cruiser and hire another officer. I don't even think it's going to be cheaper in any meaningful way. So, we'll see...

--

/\_/\
((@v@)) NIGHT
()::) OWL
VV-VV

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:56:22 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Bill wrote:
In article , says...

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a
crime
is in progress - to support ground operations.

Remotely-controlled drones will be used (mostly) to snoop around
and look for evidence of criminal activity.


Well I am not a criminal, so have no problem with that.

Seems that a lot of Germans said something similar to the Gestapo


"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was
not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I
was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


close enough, not that it matters to Bill, but according to the
Martin-Niemöller-Foundation the text is as follows:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

In the US the quotation is more commonly known as:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Police Man wrote:

And I have to wonder how effective a drone helicopter would be at
night as a crime deterrant or even a crime-discovery / observation
tool.

FLIR

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:09:25 -0400, Police Man wrote:

Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The
National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of
police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and
carry out investigations.

They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal?

Police helicopters only go up into the air AFTER (or WHILE) a crime is
in progress - to support ground operations.


BS ... well in Houston, Texas that is !!!

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:50:52 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Police Man wrote:

And I have to wonder how effective a drone helicopter would be at
night as a crime deterrant or even a crime-discovery / observation
tool.

FLIR

Big-ass spotlight.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:53:18 -0400, George
wrote:

On 9/29/2012 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:

According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National
Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using
unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.


They have been using police helicopters ever since I can
remember. What is the big deal? Sounds like the drones
would be cheaper...


Except you are trying to discuss it with schizophrenic name changing
home guy...

Emphasis on "schizophrenic".

I disagree. This is all personality disorder, nothing schiz about the
dude.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sep 29, 10:44*pm, DA
wrote:
responding tohttp://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/almost-half-of-all-americans...

DA wrote:
Major Drone *wrote:
Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

I hope police departments that do deploy them are very well insured! I would imagine that these things will drop far more frequently than actual piloted aircraft and typical homeowner's insurance does not cover the damage caused by falling aircraft. I had always assumed that to operate an aircraft you would have to carry a pretty hefty liability insurance and that, as well as the fact that damage causing events are extremely rare, has been figured into the price and the coverage of typical homeowners insurances over the years.

Now, with drones flying overhead supposedly 24/7 and no pilot onboard to correct a situation and perhaps prevent or limit the damage to life and *property (perhaps even by sacrificing his own, as did happen before), the chance of aircraft damage may become significant enough for insurance companies to start charging extra for it. If that happens, it would be very interesting to watch the civil discourse that will unfold. Presumably, the deployment of drones can cost both the police departments as well as the consumers huge amounts of money, and a nice benefit to insurance companies.

I don't believe anything can stop eventual domestic deployments of drones (not necessarily for law enforcement) but it will take years to figure out all the laws and insurances and cost benefits, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Not as straightforward as to buy another cruiser and hire another officer. I don't even think it's going to be cheaper in any meaningful way. So, we'll see...



You Americans are thick as sh*t.
They are remote controlled, that's all.
The pilot is sat in the office miles away.
Probably looking out for women sunning themselves in the back garden.
So no savings, just more snooping.

In article m,
Earl wrote:



Just wait. Something will be invented to see thru the walls of your home
and spy on you. Stop the drones, now!!!

That's already been addressed. The Supremes have noted that you can't
use infrared thermal imaging (albeit from a chopper) as a way to get an
arrest or a warrant. Next!
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In m Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article m,
Earl wrote:



Just wait. Something will be invented to see thru the walls of your
home and spy on you. Stop the drones, now!!!

That's already been addressed. The Supremes have noted that you can't
use infrared thermal imaging (albeit from a chopper) as a way to get
an arrest or a warrant. Next!

You think that simply because some government action has been found to
be illegal by the courts, the government will stop doing it?

How quaint.

--
Bert

On Sep 29, 10:23*am, "WW" wrote:
Another thought on this. A danger to other aircraft??? I don't know if there
is any avoidance *control. *WW


Regardless of what the article implied about FAA comments, rest
assured that the drones will not be military/aircraft sized drones.
They will have no need to fly hundreds of miles to reach their
targets. Technology already has hummingbird sized drones easily
controlled from the back of a van a few blocks away. And their
flights will be below a couple of hundred feet altitude, well below
altitudes controlled by the FAA or used by VFR aircraft.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

Regardless of what the article implied about FAA comments, rest
assured that the drones will not be military/aircraft sized drones.
They will have no need to fly hundreds of miles to reach their
targets. Technology already has hummingbird sized drones easily
controlled from the back of a van a few blocks away. And their
flights will be below a couple of hundred feet altitude, well below
altitudes controlled by the FAA or used by VFR aircraft.

LEO will still need a warrant to use what they find in criminal
cases..

Aside:

"...A group of researchers led by Professor Todd Humphreys from the
University of Texas at Austin Radionavigation Laboratory recently
succeeded in raising the eyebrows of the US government. With just
around $1,000 in parts, Humphreys’ team took control of an unmanned
aerial vehicle owned by the college, all in front of the US Department
of Homeland Security.

After being challenged by his lab, the DHS dared Humphreys’ crew to
hack into a drone and take command. Much to their chagrin, they did
exactly that."

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-1000-us-government-906/

On Sep 30, 11:40*am, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

Regardless of what the article implied about FAA comments, rest
assured that the drones will not be military/aircraft sized drones.
They will have no need to fly hundreds of miles to reach their
targets. *Technology already has hummingbird sized drones easily
controlled from the back of a van a few blocks away. *And their
flights will be below a couple of hundred feet altitude, well below
altitudes controlled by the FAA or used by VFR aircraft.

LEO will still need a warrant to use what they find in criminal
cases..


True. I was addressing several posts about the concern of size if
crashing and about interference with general aviation rather than the
legality issues.

Aside:

"...A group of researchers led by Professor Todd Humphreys from the
University of Texas at Austin Radionavigation Laboratory recently
succeeded in raising the eyebrows of the US government. With just
around $1,000 in parts, Humphreys team took control of an unmanned
aerial vehicle owned by the college, all in front of the US Department
of Homeland Security.

After being challenged by his lab, the DHS dared Humphreys crew to
hack into a drone and take command. Much to their chagrin, they did
exactly that."

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-1000-us-government-906/

Remember that the gatling gun was thought to be a weapon to end all
wars. For every new technological 'toy' there has always been someone
out to counteract it's effectiveness. And they'll always find a way.

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

Regardless of what the article implied about FAA comments, rest
assured that the drones will not be military/aircraft sized drones.
They will have no need to fly hundreds of miles to reach their
targets. Technology already has hummingbird sized drones easily
controlled from the back of a van a few blocks away. And their
flights will be below a couple of hundred feet altitude, well below
altitudes controlled by the FAA or used by VFR aircraft.

LEO will still need a warrant to use what they find in criminal
cases..

Aside:

"...A group of researchers led by Professor Todd Humphreys from the
University of Texas at Austin Radionavigation Laboratory recently
succeeded in raising the eyebrows of the US government. With just
around $1,000 in parts, Humphreys' team took control of an unmanned
aerial vehicle owned by the college, all in front of the US
Department
of Homeland Security.

After being challenged by his lab, the DHS dared Humphreys' crew to
hack into a drone and take command. Much to their chagrin, they did
exactly that."

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-1000-us-government-906/

tell someone they can't do something and I guarantee someone will find
a way.

Earl wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article m,
Earl wrote:



Just wait. Something will be invented to see thru the walls of your
home and spy on you. Stop the drones, now!!!

That's already been addressed. The Supremes have noted that you can't
use infrared thermal imaging (albeit from a chopper) as a way to get
an arrest or a warrant. Next!

They will still use it to spy on you, get it????

And?....

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:40:11 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

"...A group of researchers led by Professor Todd Humphreys from the
University of Texas at Austin Radionavigation Laboratory recently
succeeded in raising the eyebrows of the US government. With just
around $1,000 in parts, Humphreys' team took control of an unmanned
aerial vehicle owned by the college, all in front of the US
Department
of Homeland Security.

After being challenged by his lab, the DHS dared Humphreys' crew to
hack into a drone and take command. Much to their chagrin, they did
exactly that."

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-1000-us-government-906/

tell someone they can't do something and I guarantee someone will find
a way.


I have a stubborn streak like that I came by honestly. Folks that say
you can't do that, to them, I say hide and watch.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:43:24 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

They will still use it to spy on you, get it????

And?....

Count wide boar hogs. I thought you knew...