I'm starting to feel as if we're living in the George Orwell book, "1984." Next, I guess it will be the "thought police." "As the Obama administration dials back the number of drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the U.S. military is shifting its huge fleet of unmanned aircraft to other hot spots around the world. This next phase of drone warfare is focused more on spying than killing and will extend the Pentagons robust surveillance networks far beyond traditional, declared combat zones. Over the past decade, the Pentagon has amassed more than 400 Predators, Reapers, Hunters, Gray Eagles and other high-altitude drones that have revolutionized counterterrorism operations. Some of the unmanned aircraft will return home with U.S. troops when they leave Afghanistan. But many of the drones will redeploy to fresh frontiers, where they will spy on a melange of armed groups, drug runners, pirates and other targets that worry U.S. officials." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...57fbda-ef1c-11e2-8163-2c7021381a75_story.html And we also know the use is being expanded right here in our own country. "The FAA says that locations in over 30 states have already showed interest in the program. Soon the agency will be tasked with picking a mere half-dozen locations so that drones can formally be introduced into official US airspace and not just strips of sky above designated areas. Should the FAA stay on schedule, drones are likely to start flying regularly in the US by late 2015, and as many as 30,000 non-military UAVs are expected to be in the sky by the end of the decade. First, however, the FAA, drone builders and pilots will have to pick test sites to work out the kinks of a controversial aircraft. We expect to learn how unmanned aircraft systems operate in different environments and how they will impact air traffic operations, FAA Chief Michael Huerta says in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. The test sites will inform the agency as we develop standards for certifying unmanned aircraft and determine necessary air traffic requirements. "This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood added to the AP. Earlier in the week, the head of the FAAs new drone department spoke at a convention outside of Washington, DC to discuss some concerns Americans have voiced en masse lately about bringing drones to inside of Americas borders. The US Department of Homeland Security already has an arsenal of the aircraft at its disposal for use in border-patrol missions, but small-time law enforcement agencies and other federal, state and educational institutions hope to have drones of their in the near future. So far, the FAA has received at least 81 applications from entities wishing to obtain drone licenses, including police departments and universities. What exactly law enforcement could do with a drone has some Americans concerns, though, an issue that was addressed at this weeks conference." http://rt.com/usa/faa-drone-aircraft-us-335/
In related news: "A small town in Colorado is considering an ordinance that would create a license and bounty for hunters to shoot down drones." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/drone-hunting-colorado-172357477.html My local Muni Airport was just given clearance for a drone R&D center by the City Council. This is happening across the nation, check out this map of UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) sites: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_testsite_map.pdf The FAA is integrating UAS test sites into the National Airspace System (NAS). So far these are test sites only. No official plans for local aerial survey have been published but, whether or not they are or will be used is probably a moot question because drones exist and are virtually undetectable. Frankly I'd rather know where the sites are at this point.
We're already living in an Orwellian state because the *******s demand more government to take care of them because they're all children.
Whilst disturbing that this is going forward, is it really any different than law enforcement using planes or helicopters? I am not sure this is anything other than a less expensive form of what we already have, and the only change here is the UAV's are less expensive to procure and put into use.
it is no differnet...other than they wait to have a reason to use manned aircraft. that's the problem, they plan on using the drones for patrol.
the drone hunting license made me LOL. it's just a tourist gimmick....then the FAA issued a warnign that bringing down a drone would be treated just like it was a manned aircraft...helloooo FAA??? aircraft aren't allowed under 300ft and if anyone hits one with a rifle, it was an act of god.
Mike, I can put 3 rounds of 7mm Mag in a pie plate at 300 yards. Granted the drone is moving but so were the wild Boar. - - - Updated - - - How high do they fly?
I don't think we have any helicopters and/or planes inside our country that are doing surveillance and spying on us.
Really? Here is a law enforcement helicopter that spotted a pot farm. http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121003/news/710039911/ Is this somehow different than if it was an "drone" that spotted it?
They do when they take off and land. - - - Updated - - - Tell that to the posters in the Conspiracy forum.
yeah, get near an airport and shoot in the air. the airport police aren't the TSA. we'll have a memorial service for you.
We had them over 40 years ago I imagine we have many more now with greater capabilities and other duties. As kids we had quite a bit of scary fun messin with em.
So, exactly how much surveillance of the American citizens are you willing to accept? Some limits? No limits? You're talking about local or state law enforcement. I'm talking about the federal gov't surveillance over it's citizens.
As it pertains to law enforcement agencies, I don't know. I have not decided yet. On one hand, you can argue that you have the presumption of privacy. I there is no reason for law enforcement to think you ar doing anything wrong, then why would they be able to use things that they see from sky as evidence? On the other hand, is this using existing technology that to date I have not seen raise my hackles over?
Often it doesn't raise one's hackles unless they themselves are a target. OR if there is an administration in charge of a different political party.....making one less trusting of how it will be used.
Oh. I think that is is more along the lines of a slippery slope, with definite parameters needing to be set. Not sure what the hell the administration has to do with anything.
Raise your hands if you have heard the following......................"I don't care that the Patriot Act exists, because I am not a terrorist, and I have nothing dubious to hide."
Some administrations might be more inclined to abuse it. That's why I'm against federal surveillance of it's citizens. Local and state law enforcement is a bit different.
Ok Grok but at 8333 yards high seeing it does,nt help much. Now if you have something that can hit it with more certainty than a lightening bolt I'd like to hear about it
