Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:George I dont see your picture can I assume it's something similar to the Goodyear dirigible?

It's a picture of the blimp from Bladerunner.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.

The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.

Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?

The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.

True. I'm not completely familiar with how the police use helicopters now, but from watching TV (Which never lies!) they are called in to support the officers. They don't waste time loitering around looking for suspicious behavior because it would be a ridiuclous waste of resources.

Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.

Like, with red light cameras, the evidence gets trusted a little too fast. In some places they've made the law such that the camera has to get a clear view of the face and at least a certain number of the plate etc. It seems to work really well and remove some of the questionability of it. Something like that would be perfectly reasonable to apply to this.

Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be a smart idea to have an extra layer of constitutional enforcement JUST IN CASE a drone operator unilaterally decided to push the envelope. I'd be happy to see a law that raised the requirements for using drone evidence just slightly. Not so much that you're losing cases or anything, but just enough that a few extra eyes need to check it first.

I don't think it would hurt and it would make most people feel better about them.

but legally, it's just a helicopter. The exact same powers and restrictions as your local PD's helicopter.

A lot of those requirements are already in place. Carry overs from police aviation, and the use of UAVs for law enforcement on the border especially since CBP started using them actively. There always has to be a filter on a new asset. Especially the unblinking eye of technology.

I see the main focus on the drones though is the southern border.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.

The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.

Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?

The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.

True. I'm not completely familiar with how the police use helicopters now, but from watching TV (Which never lies!) they are called in to support the officers. They don't waste time loitering around looking for suspicious behavior because it would be a ridiuclous waste of resources.

Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.

If they had the money to run a helicopter nonstop, they would and regular laws would apply.

Suspicious behavior viewed from a drone is exactly like suspicious behavior viewed from a car. It lets the officer stop you and figure out if there is a crime happening. If the drone sees something behind a fence on private property that isn't an actual crime in progress or an emergency, then they'll have to still go through a judge to go in. If the drone sees something that constitutes probable cause, but is not an actual witnessed crime on private property behind fences, then they'll in most cases STILL need to get a real warrant.

TL : DR version: Anything that the drone can see that's not an actual crime actually occuring right there or isn't happening out in public where a cop could be anyway will end up requiring a judge's go ahead to do very much.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.

Edit: Redlight Cameras were deemed unconstitutional in my state at one point. I wonder if they are back on line now.

Easy E wrote:

Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.

Maybe while you are off drawing pictures you should google Gorgon Stare and Constant Hawk. Which as I have already pointed out is not a drone, it's a sensor. A sensor that doesn't work right, and is extremely expensive. It also has power requirements, and data collection rates that don't allow real time transmission.

Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.

The other reason is that the red light tickets are usually a different fine than when a cop cites you for running a red light. This can be construed as a violation of equal protection because the city can put red light cameras in the swanky neighborhoods and cops in the bad ones. Ruh roh scooby.

If they avoid these things, they tend to be found constitutional.

Easy E wrote: I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.

No you don't, you're a fear monger.

You do know they have satellites that can read newspaper in people backyard right?

Rented Tritium wrote:Like, with red light cameras, the evidence gets trusted a little too fast. In some places they've made the law such that the camera has to get a clear view of the face and at least a certain number of the plate etc. It seems to work really well and remove some of the questionability of it. Something like that would be perfectly reasonable to apply to this.

GOOD POINT! I'm ok with that too RT

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote: I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.

No you don't, you're a fear monger.

Gee, I guess I did need to add a.... to the end of that sentence.

I guess you never read how to Win Friends and Influence People. Way to get people on your side.



By the way, why create a "Sensor System" for Drones like Gorgon Stare, and not put it in a drone once you have built it? I didn't think the company built it just for LOLz. I think they intend on selling it to people like the military, police, and other corporations.

So, how about the use of drone by other non-military/paramilitary groups. You know, like journalists and stuff?

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:George I dont see your picture can I assume it's something similar to the Goodyear dirigible?

It's a picture of the blimp from Bladerunner.

Gotcha, Blimps and dirigibles are susceptible to weather more than other aircraft. It limits their utilization, it's why you won't see them used that way.

They stick to embed. There's no need to show how military/law enforcement operate in a tactical situation. Look at what happen to Geraldo in Iraq when he describe how a military unit capture a objective.

Easy E wrote:I guess you never read how to Win Friends and Influence People. Way to get people on your side.

much happier with people like you not "on my side."

Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.

Again, how is this different from how police currently operate?

Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.



So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.

Let's say someone like CNN or FOX news purchases one. What do you think they would use it for? Just like a Helicpoter, or are their other innovative uses you could think of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.

Again, how is this different from how police currently operate?

Sorry, I missed this. Yeah, I'm starting to believe you guys are right.

All though, after being called a fear monger, I kinda want to dig my heels in just to be a jack ass.

Easy E wrote:Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.

WTF? Who are you even talking to?

Rented Tritium wrote:Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.

I don't see how this is distinct from contesting an ordinary speeding ticket.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.

WTF? Who are you even talking to?

AustonT, who doesn't want to convince me he is right because he thinks I'm a fear monger. Despite the venom, I actually think Rented Tritium and AustonT (along with others) were right, and I was concerned for no real reason.

Now, what applications do you see for drone technology outside of the military/para-military. I think Saddam all ready modified some for spraying (IIRC). Crop dusting is a big deal where I live, perhaps that could be a future market for Drone tech.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.

I don't see how this is distinct from contesting an ordinary speeding ticket.

With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.

A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.

Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.

yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.

"slowly moves out of the firing lane"

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.

yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.

on the positive they already do to an extent. Not the big mondos like you're talking about, but radio controlled helicpoters and such (the cheap crap). They've been used on several movie sets for wide panoramic shots of outside events (Gettysberg was one of the first).

on the aquatic front, their use is incredibly common.

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.

yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.

Well those are actually only SOME of the drones. There are some smaller cheaper ones with less flight time that will be used commercially. Further, in the next few years they really will get cheaper, I'm sure.

I think the very first regular use for them will be advertising. It would be relatively inexpensive to have small battery powered drones that are small enough and low enough to avoid FAA regulation that could use low power lasers to project things onto fog or clouds or what have you.

Another use is entertainment. I'm SURE disney parks are already looking into using them with animatronics to have flying characters or whatnot.

Also security. A large parking lot could have a drone watching for auto burglaries. Similar to those cherry picker cabs you see right now.

Then the paparazzi. There's good money in celeb pictures. Some of those photo agencies could afford a drone if it was just a tiiiny bit cheaper.


So basically, there are a ton of uses, but the BULK of them will be the small ones under the FAA's altitudes of jurisdiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's enough money in things drones can do that there is a HUGE incentive for companies to make them cheaper.

I mean, a robot vacuums my apartment RIGHT NOW. This stuff is GOING to get cheaper.

I reread the thread, and I see why AustonT is po'ed. I apologize for the "draw a picture" comment.


Now, I also can see that as these things become more mainstream the costs WILL go down. As the costs go down, their will be a new demand for commercial entities.

The advertising aspect seems really interesting to me. At first, I was just thinkg they could pull banners around, but animatronics and laser imagery is a much cooler idea?

So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?

NASA uses drones for various weather related research shenanigans.

It's also worth noting that there's actually a pair of cases dealing with aerial surveillance. California v. Ciraolo established that officers can make an aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home without a search warrant. There's another case, which eludes me at the moment, which establishes that it does require a warrant to use specialist equipment like FLIR to notice a house which is growing marijuana internally.

Easy E wrote:I reread the thread, and I see why AustonT is po'ed. I apologize for the "draw a picture" comment.


Now, I also can see that as these things become more mainstream the costs WILL go down. As the costs go down, their will be a new demand for commercial entities.

The advertising aspect seems really interesting to me. At first, I was just thinkg they could pull banners around, but animatronics and laser imagery is a much cooler idea?

So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?

Restrictions on aerial surveillance in general should be put in place, be it drones or other means.