Author Topic: The new “Black helicopters”? (Read 1341 times)

Arlo · « **Reply #45 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:27:56 PM »

It's not legal trade. But it can be defined as invasion of privacy. The argument is the justifiability.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #46 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:33:29 PM »

Quote

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.

Rich46yo · « **Reply #47 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:35:23 PM »

Quote

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.

john9001 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:40:33 PM »

Quote

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.

Arlo · « **Reply #49 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:41:55 PM »

Quote

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.

Vulcan · « **Reply #50 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:41:59 PM »

Quote

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

Maverick · « **Reply #51 on:** November 27, 2007, 05:18:16 PM »

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.

G0ALY · « **Reply #52 on:** November 27, 2007, 05:55:52 PM »

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.

Shamus · « **Reply #53 on:** November 27, 2007, 07:50:28 PM »

Quote

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

Gunslinger · « **Reply #54 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:02:56 PM »

Quote

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.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #55 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:06:27 PM »

Quote

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.

Arlo · « **Reply #56 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:09:56 PM »

Quote

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.

AKIron · « **Reply #57 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:11:32 PM »

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.