"Enemy UAV Spotted!"

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by Merc, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime


  2. Hatton

    Hatton Registered Member

    Interesting concept and raises any number of issues or opportunities. Based on the phrases and comments used, the the "investigative report" seems to be wearing his tin-foil underwear pretty snugly.

    Let's spell out both sides of the service that these bad boys can provide:
    Pro:
    * Safe approach and identification in potentially hostile situations.
    * Covert surveillance.
    * Remote / High Risk area SAR
    * High speed tracking and reconnaissance.

    Con:
    * Potential abuse by police
    * Crashes - not good

    It's difficult for me to say that I have a problem with the conceptual uses of this until I'm shown an example of how the conceptual abuses are violations of civil liberties don't also implicate someone in a crime.
     
  3. viLky

    viLky ykLiv

    1) Doesn't that guy at 3:25 look like Crispin Glover?

    2) Like she said: evacuations, mobility, tactical, S&R and homeland security. Just as long as they don't break any laws which we all know that they will. Arg... >.<;
     
  4. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    The problem Hatton is that no police officer in their right mind will use this type of technology just to watch criminals. This sort of thing only provides an illusion of safety, something that the people who like this sort of thing will no doubt say. However, it is too much. Police choppers are good enough and catch plenty of bad guys. This type of military tech should remain with the military, not for common law enforcement.
     
  5. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    I have to agree with Constantine here. I mean what is the logic in using something like this? They couldn't even tell you what it would directly be used for, which means, it will be used for everything. We are not a police state.

    I say boo on this ten times over.
     
  6. Hatton

    Hatton Registered Member

    I can see some fiscal arguments for the usage of the drones - mainly when it comes to drug trafficking and other force-heavy activity. More to the point, I see this as being a tool similar to SWAT teams or police snipers. They're heavy-duty, military grade tools that would be deployed with caution and extreme guidance.

    I guess I'm spoiled with an only slightly skeptical view of local law enforcement. I live in a rural area and the only thing we have is the county sheriff. Worst they do is speed... an annoyance but nothing that I consider impeding on my rights as a private citizen. Even when I worked in Buffalo (the closest major city) there wasn't so much of a worry about abuse of power as there was frustration at the impotence.

    Do the residents of Houston (or any larger Metro area) really distrust their own police agencies that badly?
     
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    It's not about simply not trusting police officers, it's about not trusting people in places of power. Sure this drone has its uses, but there is nothing practical it is useful for. You say drug busts? Why not a police chopper? If anything, that's better because it's armed! Drones are used to spy, end of story. Houston is not such a shit hole that they need constant surveillance. Very few cities are.
     
  8. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    I agree with the sense that this is a very useful technology if used responsibly. Problem is, we have safe guards in place already for similar technology... and those safe guards should be in place for these drones also.

    For example... only deployed after the acquisition of a warrant and only allowed to search line of site areas.

    Given free run, drones such as these are most definitely a breech of our constitutional amendment rights.
     

Share This Page