Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: G0ALY on November 25, 2007, 08:41:25 PM
-
Are the “Black helicopters” being replaced with little white drones?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa2_1196022502
-
How long until someone shoots one of those suckers down? It'll be interesting if they try to turn that into a terrorist offense. IMHO it shouldn't be any worse than (for example) taking a bat to an unoccupied cop car... Yea it's anti-social, but punishment really needs to fit the crime and taking out a surveilance drone isn't really much different than knocking a red light camera off of a stoplight. Except a bit more expensive...
But you just know that if/when it happens, they'll try to make a huge deal out of it or try to tie it to national security.
-
Yep its just the beginning of the end of all civil liberty's and the beginning of a true tyranny in our government. BTW isn't Texas run by Democrats now and isn't the liberal US media pushing for a left wing, commie lover female to be President and then call for a true elimination of all freedom for the members of the proletariat????
:noid
-
Originally posted by Reschke
BTW isn't Texas run by Democrats now?
That would be a no. Texas ... home of the gerrymander. :D
-
The post I made a few weeks ago about Blackwater's new contract had this kinda stuff included in it. That was a multi billion dollar contract and about 20% of the funds were to be used inside the US. UAV's were part of the contract..
It's funny how it used to be the Conservatives whom used scream about NWO, black helicopters and the govt controlled by FEMA or some secret shadow govt.
Yet under Bush and co it's all coming true.. and the Conservatives back them while it's being done.
-
We all know that according to Robert Bork the Constitution does not provide privacy protections, I suspect that that is the majority opinion of the current court.
shamus
-
I don't like this much. Looks a lot like a duck to me and I'm sure it will to others as well. Hunting season is about to begin.
-
Ya better hope it does not shoot back.
shamus
-
Oh no! It's 1984 all over again!
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
-
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
shamus
-
drones for law enforcement? oh my, there goes the bill of rights :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
Oh no! It's 1984 all over again!
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
WMD, man! Smoking mushroom cloud! W save us from the Democrats!!! Ahhhhh!!!! ;)
(This has been ... perspective ... presented by citizens who are tired of all the bricks and glass houses.) :aok
-
"We followed the secret drone in News Chopper 2, and these drones have cameras that can zoom in much like our news cameras, and look inside peoples homes (much like we can)"
Police already have this capability with manned aircraft. This just saves fuel and money.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
WMD, man! Smoking mushroom cloud! W save us from the Democrats!!! Ahhhhh!!!! ;)
(This has been ... perspective ... presented by citizens who are tired of all the bricks and glass houses.) :aok
Prove that Iraq did not have WMD's....
-
Prove that a blue whale can't fly.
-
Saw this quote somewhere:
"If Satan ever laughs, it must be at hypocrits (minus the e); they are the greatest dupes he has." - Charles Colton
And more than just science draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
Hmmmmm .....
Smoking mushrooms ..... cloud ..... heh
;)
-
Originally posted by eagl
How long until someone shoots one of those suckers down? It'll be interesting if they try to turn that into a terrorist offense. IMHO it shouldn't be any worse than (for example) taking a bat to an unoccupied cop car... Yea it's anti-social, but punishment really needs to fit the crime and taking out a surveilance drone isn't really much different than knocking a red light camera off of a stoplight. Except a bit more expensive...
But you just know that if/when it happens, they'll try to make a huge deal out of it or try to tie it to national security.
Eagle,
I really hope you were drunk when you posted that. You should have some idea about what would be wrong about shooting at an aircraft, manned or not, especially in an urban area. The laws, Federal and local, that would violate would carry some severe penalties and significant danger to others. Perhaps if someone decided to fire on your aircraft because they don't like the noise or the sight of another aircraft over their heads you might feel differently.
There was a nice spin to the story here about the capabilities of the drone. Frankly it has less capability than the usual manned helicopter has other than possibly loiter time. It won't be able to fly from scene to scene as fast as a helicopter can now and certainly can't have the flexibility if it needs the support vehicles in sight. I'd really think that the helicopter is a far more valuable tool than a drone. If there is a problem in flight they will most definitely have more difficulty in picking a spot to land than a helicopter as well.
Frankly it looks like a way to save some money over a helicopter patrol and I don't think it's cost savings out weighs the lack of capability it has vs a manned copter.
-
If they want to replace helicopter's on a one for one basis with these things to save money, I think thats a great idea.
I just don't want to see dozens of these things flying around my County because they are so cheap.
shamus
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Prove that a blue whale can't fly.
Douglas Adams once proved that a sperm whale cant fly.
-
Anything can fly with enough power behind it, just look at the F-4's...:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Saw this quote somewhere:
"If Satan ever laughs, it must be at hypocrits (minus the e); they are the greatest dupes he has." - Charles Colton
And more than just science draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
Hmmmmm .....
Smoking mushrooms ..... cloud ..... heh
;)
A: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrits
B: You can not prove that Iraq did not have WMD's. So who is the hypocrite?
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Yep its just the beginning of the end of all civil liberty's and the beginning of a true tyranny in our government. BTW isn't Texas run by Democrats now and isn't the liberal US media pushing for a left wing, commie lover female to be President and then call for a true elimination of all freedom for the members of the proletariat????
:noid
How is a little helicopter flying around an "end to civil liberties"? Why would anyone shoot one down? And why should any imbecile who touched off a rifle in a city, shooting at a drone, get off easy by the courts?
-
"HPD leaders said they would address privacy and unlawful search questions later."
wrngway
-
The news group comes off as being offended becuase they weren't invited to watch the demo. The moment news orgs are offered a chance to buy drones to cover their news stories it's going to be ok to have them...
So what do these drones do that the police aren't already capable of doing in their existing helicopters? fly more hours? more units in the air? better surveillance?
-
I wouldn't get too upset about it's capabilities... they can't even catch guys burying IED's in Iraq with em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ya better hope it does not shoot back.
shamus
No kidding.
30-06 vs Hellfire
-
If it's used like a normal police helicopter is used, then I see no big deal with them really. However if they start using them for general surveillance then I do see a problem with it.
-
Don't you see the irony in what I posted??? Or are you just trying to cover up the shadow government that was created when Jeb Bush left office in Florida?????
Originally posted by Rich46yo
How is a little helicopter flying around an "end to civil liberties"? Why would anyone shoot one down? And why should any imbecile who touched off a rifle in a city, shooting at a drone, get off easy by the courts?
-
Originally posted by crockett
If it's used like a normal police helicopter is used, then I see no big deal with them really. However if they start using them for general surveillance then I do see a problem with it.
And just what do you think they do in the helicopters??? Uh general surveillance. 90% of the time they are up cruising around, they are just looking at anything and everything. Same thing with a drone. Keep a watchfull eye out and if you see something interesting go in for a closer look.
I suppose you think it's an invasion of privacy for police officers to just tool around in their cars looking at people too.
-
However if they start using them for general surveillance then I do see a problem with it.
====
yeah? like going to prison perhaps?
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
A: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrits
B: You can not prove that Iraq did not have WMD's. So who is the hypocrite?
Cause not being able to prove a negative really makes a point well. Erm. Yeah. ;)
You're the one exemplifying the right side's version of fear and paranoia in a thread where other's mock the left side's penchant for such. That didn't answer your question of who's being the "hypocrite" (aka hypocrit) quite the way you wanted it to but I'm pretty sure you didn't understand that.
:aok :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I wouldn't get too upset about it's capabilities... they can't even catch guys burying IED's in Iraq with em.
lazs
I have seen some interesting videos of guys planting IEDs all of a sudden being sent to find out if there really are 72 virgins waiting. And helicopters were involved.
-
Originally posted by crockett
If it's used like a normal police helicopter is used, then I see no big deal with them really. However if they start using them for general surveillance then I do see a problem with it.
Like what kind of general surveillance?
Why would the Police "generally surveill" you?
The idea no doubt is to look hard at drug ops on the street level. And to surveill big hitters in the drug world and maybe terrorism. Nobody is going to use them to watch honest working people. We already use cameras to catch drug dealers. We use them all the time.
They setup a certain way and they move a certain way. We can spot drug corners a mile away but the problem is getting up on them. Boy I wish we had some of these helicopters. We could shoot video of streets sales and then move in having both ends of the evidence tied up. Video is powerful evidence. When you can show a jury a kid going back to the same crack in the wall 15 times in an hour, show them 15 times him handing off packets to another kid, who in turns hands them off to passing cars. Its powerful evidence in court.
-
Powerful evidence that doesn't accomplish anything at all. I abhor drug dealers and their existence in our world is part of the problem with our society....BUT stopping the corner kid by putting him in jail doesn't accomplish anything.
IF you could stop him with a bullet and then continue to do the same thing to the 4-5 more that would take his place then you could begin to eat away at the underlings that push the product out the door. BUT you still have to get to the root of the cause and that is the actual dealers and most of the time those aren't even the guys behind the wall handing out the material.
The way of the vigilante would work and plain old Islamic justice would eliminate the problem in some ways.
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Like what kind of general surveillance?
Why would the Police "generally surveill" you?
The idea no doubt is to look hard at drug ops on the street level. And to surveill big hitters in the drug world and maybe terrorism. Nobody is going to use them to watch honest working people. We already use cameras to catch drug dealers. We use them all the time.
They setup a certain way and they move a certain way. We can spot drug corners a mile away but the problem is getting up on them. Boy I wish we had some of these helicopters. We could shoot video of streets sales and then move in having both ends of the evidence tied up. Video is powerful evidence. When you can show a jury a kid going back to the same crack in the wall 15 times in an hour, show them 15 times him handing off packets to another kid, who in turns hands them off to passing cars. Its powerful evidence in court.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Powerful evidence that doesn't accomplish anything at all. I abhor drug dealers and their existence in our world is part of the problem with our society....BUT stopping the corner kid by putting him in jail doesn't accomplish anything.
IF you could stop him with a bullet and then continue to do the same thing to the 4-5 more that would take his place then you could begin to eat away at the underlings that push the product out the door. BUT you still have to get to the root of the cause and that is the actual dealers and most of the time those aren't even the guys behind the wall handing out the material.
The way of the vigilante would work and plain old Islamic justice would eliminate the problem in some ways.
As long as it wasnt your kid right? Should we shoot the rich white kids coming uptown to buy in the back of the head too? Or are they different?
Police priority should always be on both street sales and high end work. You have to shut down the street cause thats where most of your bodies are piling up. Not just that but somtimes your pinching young kids that can still be talked to.
Thanks but I lived under Islamic justic for 18 mos and anyone trying to impose it here would get a gunfight on their hands. And quickly!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Cause not being able to prove a negative really makes a point well. Erm. Yeah. ;)
You're the one exemplifying the right side's version of fear and paranoia in a thread where other's mock the left side's penchant for such. That didn't answer your question of who's being the "hypocrite" (aka hypocrit) quite the way you wanted it to but I'm pretty sure you didn't understand that.
:aok :D
I could care less about the police having drones. To me, it just means less noise than a Bell 206 flapping away at night. Please point out where I said differently.
I just asked you to prove that Iraq did not have WMD's.
You were mistaken in your attempt to correct spelling, and you supply no proof other than the typical left wing WMD rant.
I think the hypocrite is fairly obvious.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I just asked you to prove that Iraq did not have WMD's.
You were mistaken in your attempt to correct spelling, and you supply no proof other than the typical left wing WMD rant.
I think the hypocrite is fairly obvious.
Here, maybe this will somehow provide a clue.
I think you had a nuke in your basement last week but now it's in Syria. Prove me wrong (because, obviously, I'm not equipped to prove myself right).
And yeah, my bad, hypocrite. (http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/hypocrit - bad Arlo! -hangs head in spelling bee shame-especially since it was my bringing it up). However .... I'm still quite certain you have issues with the proper way to apply it. A double standard is no standard at all, eh? ;)
Something is fairly obvious. Many thanks, sport. :)
-
I'm with the crowd that says what's the difference? Seriously, all you are doing is taking the man out of the cockpit and putting him in an office somewhere.
Air Support has proven invaluable in many police chases. Think of all those high speed chases where the ground units backed off to give the criminals some room so they hopfully don't drive through someone's living room. The air unit stays on them and the pursuit never stops.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm with the crowd that says what's the difference? Seriously, all you are doing is taking the man out of the cockpit and putting him in an office somewhere.
Air Support has proven invaluable in many police chases. Think of all those high speed chases where the ground units backed off to give the criminals some room so they hopfully don't drive through someone's living room. The air unit stays on them and the pursuit never stops.
As to the meat of the topic, gotta say I concur.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Here, maybe this will somehow provide a clue.
I think you had a nuke in your basement last week but now it's in Syria. Prove me wrong (because, obviously, I'm not equipped to prove myself right).
And yeah, my bad, hypocrite. (http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/hypocrit - bad Arlo! -hangs head in spelling bee shame-especially since it was my bringing it up). However .... I'm still quite certain you have issues with the proper way to apply it. A double standard is no standard at all, eh? ;)
Something is fairly obvious. Many thanks, sport. :)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
Apparently there are multiple entrances on the word.
You obviously think you are far superior to everyone else here. Keep up that broken record WMD left wing rant though. It definitely makes you seem far more intelligent than the rest of us. :lol
Cyas around hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Like what kind of general surveillance?
Why would the Police "generally surveill" you?
The idea no doubt is to look hard at drug ops on the street level. And to surveill big hitters in the drug world and maybe terrorism. Nobody is going to use them to watch honest working people. We already use cameras to catch drug dealers. We use them all the time.
They setup a certain way and they move a certain way. We can spot drug corners a mile away but the problem is getting up on them. Boy I wish we had some of these helicopters. We could shoot video of streets sales and then move in having both ends of the evidence tied up. Video is powerful evidence. When you can show a jury a kid going back to the same crack in the wall 15 times in an hour, show them 15 times him handing off packets to another kid, who in turns hands them off to passing cars. Its powerful evidence in court.
What I'm saying, is if it's used like a normal police helicopter is used then it's no big deal IMO. Meaning if it's used in assistance to the police on the street, such as air surveillance of a chase or help locating a suspect.
However if it's used to spy in peoples backyards or on their private property. Well then I do see a problem with it. However sad to say they can likely legally get away with it.
In other words if they use them to "spy" on normal people not suspected of a crime, well I do see a problem with that. I'm sure they will end up used in "drug areas" at first then they will start showing up more often in other places.
Just like everything else.
-
I don't like red light cameras either, too much room for abuse. Get the cops out of the donut shops and let 'em earn their pay.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Cyas around hypocrite.
Regularly, hypocrit. :aok
-
Crockett,
some of these drones come equiped with special sensors that can detect meth labs and grow houses. Do you consider that an invasion of privacy?
-
i consider that restraint of trade.
-
It's not legal trade. But it can be defined as invasion of privacy. The argument is the justifiability.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
It's not legal trade. But it can be defined as invasion of privacy. The argument is the justifiability.
Only if one had the reasonable assumption of privacy against massive heat source detection inside there home. Can't remember the specific case but I remember reading about some pot growers that fought and lost there case based on this.
BUT, IIRC the IR images alone were not enough to obtain a warrant, they just started the investigation.
This is also easily defeat-able by specific heat shielding and what not. Something a grower can readily afford IMHO.
-
Originally posted by crockett
What I'm saying, is if it's used like a normal police helicopter is used then it's no big deal IMO. Meaning if it's used in assistance to the police on the street, such as air surveillance of a chase or help locating a suspect.
However if it's used to spy in peoples backyards or on their private property. Well then I do see a problem with it. However sad to say they can likely legally get away with it.
In other words if they use them to "spy" on normal people not suspected of a crime, well I do see a problem with that. I'm sure they will end up used in "drug areas" at first then they will start showing up more often in other places.
Just like everything else.
Why would the police look in your backyard?
Why would we spy on normal people not suspected of a crime? Why would we care about them? Your not making any sense.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Why would the police look in your backyard?
Why would we spy on normal people not suspected of a crime? Why would we care about them? Your not making any sense.
to see if your sunbathing in the nude. :O
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Only if one had the reasonable assumption of privacy against massive heat source detection inside there home. Can't remember the specific case but I remember reading about some pot growers that fought and lost there case based on this.
BUT, IIRC the IR images alone were not enough to obtain a warrant, they just started the investigation.
This is also easily defeat-able by specific heat shielding and what not. Something a grower can readily afford IMHO.
Most certainly. I'm just sayin, by definition, any measure taken to ascertain what citizens (or even non-citizens) do behind closed doors is "invasion of privacy." An extreme Libertarian would balk at anything remotely approaching such. I can see room to reason.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm with the crowd that says what's the difference? Seriously, all you are doing is taking the man out of the cockpit and putting him in an office somewhere.
Thats a very short sights point of view. There's actually much more being done. First you're lowering the cost, then you're lowering the training/skill requirements to keep these things in the air (less trained pilots, co-pilots, ground support staff). Throw in automated flight tracks (not uncommon with UAVs) and you have 24/7 Surveillance for Dummies. Integrate with image processing software such as facial and number plate recognition systems and you start gathering a lot of informative data, very easily.
It's not sci fi fantasy stuff either, it is all off the shelf technology that can be deployed fairly easily (for instance number plate recognition software is used for traffic enforcement in the UK, facial recognition databases are used in airports globally).
So where you 1 chopper in the air, you can now put 10 drones on a race track with a single operator and automated management/surveillance systems. Package in some nice software like plate recognition, image anomaly analysis and well ... :) 1984
-
Depending on exactly what is required from the support vehicles mentioned in the original story, there may not be any manpower savings. There very well may be a dramatic increase in loiter time vs a helo however.
-
To me the most interesting part of the story was when the news helicopter was told it was in restricted airspace when it was not.
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
To me the most interesting part of the story was when the news helicopter was told it was in restricted airspace when it was not.
Its kinda like the guy's in here that say "if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" :)
Oops....we are the government, different rules than the unwashed masses.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thats a very short sights point of view. There's actually much more being done. First you're lowering the cost, then you're lowering the training/skill requirements to keep these things in the air (less trained pilots, co-pilots, ground support staff). Throw in automated flight tracks (not uncommon with UAVs) and you have 24/7 Surveillance for Dummies. Integrate with image processing software such as facial and number plate recognition systems and you start gathering a lot of informative data, very easily.
It's not sci fi fantasy stuff either, it is all off the shelf technology that can be deployed fairly easily (for instance number plate recognition software is used for traffic enforcement in the UK, facial recognition databases are used in airports globally).
So where you 1 chopper in the air, you can now put 10 drones on a race track with a single operator and automated management/surveillance systems. Package in some nice software like plate recognition, image anomaly analysis and well ... :) 1984
If you don't think that won't happen in our lifetime you IMHO are sorely mistaken. I think it's inevitable.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Most certainly. I'm just sayin, by definition, any measure taken to ascertain what citizens (or even non-citizens) do behind closed doors is "invasion of privacy." An extreme Libertarian would balk at anything remotely approaching such. I can see room to reason.
ask a physics geek if what you are looking at on an IR image is technically behind closed doors.
I could be wrong but think particles.
;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ask a physics geek if what you are looking at on an IR image is technically behind closed doors.
I could be wrong but think particles.
;)
Infrared physics talk ain't new to me. We could tell what time of the month it was for female plane handlers with a quick scan. But I don't see it rationalizing away physical privacy. AAMOF I believe I just gave example of invasion of. :)
-
The most negative impact of such a technology may not be the reality but the perception. We in the US are obviously divided politically. The more power a government has, the more antagonistic it becomes when it is not your party of choice. Best to squelch it while we can, if it's not already too late.