<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;San Fransisco police getting drones&#x27; in forum &#x27;Security&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27667925</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 02:12:06 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 02:12:06 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27969734</link>
<description><![CDATA[OZO posted : Not every new technology should or will survive. For example, in past century some folks were excited to see how their feet fit new shoes right in the shop. Of course, later they discovered, that the X-ray, while being a new and "wonderful" technology (as some, selling it, pitched that at the time), could be very dangerous... But wisdom usually comes after an excitement.<br><br>While policing us from the sky could, for some, seem "exciting" new technology, I'm confident that people don't want to see new drones starting falling from the sky right on their heads...<br><small>--<br>Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27969734</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:07:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27968097</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blackbird posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>...once the cat gets out of the bag, it ain't going back in it. </p></div>That depends on the cat and the bag... <br><small>--<br>“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville</small><div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=2 WIDTH=66%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/27968097?c=2071048&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyNzY2NzkyNS54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="34195 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=400 SRC="/r0/download/2071048~af01d3a1d168247a1e2863522beec1eb/cat-bag.jpg"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27968097</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:09:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27968039</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : Sorry not selling drones, and not looking for drone pilots, but trying to educate people that this technology is moving far faster then most people could even imagine in so many ways.  I am one who agrees with James Burke in that unless people understand what is going on with technology, they won't be able to understand where its going or be able to influence it.  In a few short years drones are going to be everywhere and doing a lot of things, some things you might like and some you might not, but once the cat gets out of the bag, it ain't going back in it.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27968039</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:22:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27967993</link>
<description><![CDATA[OZO posted :  Link Logger <A HREF="/useremail/u/356416"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>, if you, by posting your last three in a row solo posts here, try to sell your drones to us or recruit new drone pilots, you're in a wrong place. And this forum is not a billboard for your selling pitch. It's just getting ridiculous to see all that spam, don't you think? <br><br>Meanwhile, I'll just repeat the question, that you've avoided to answer:<br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p>I know that you, trying to sell the drones, don't care. But ask the rest of the people. Do they want to see your drone to go vertical right above their heads?<br> </p></div><br><small>--<br>Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27967993</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 03:06:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27967842</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : Don't leave your windows open, not even just a little bit otherwise I'm flying this into your house for a look around.<br><br><p><div style='z-index:0; text-align:center;display:block;'><object width='425' height='350'><param name='movie' value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WBUVYZkODI"><param name=wmode value="transparent"><embed wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3WBUVYZkODI" type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350' allowscriptaccess='samedomain'></embed></object></div></p><center>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WBUVYZkODI&feature=youtu.be" >www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WBUVYZk&middot;&middot;&middot;youtu.be</A></center><br><br>This technology is getting better all the time as well as cheaper.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27967842</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:51:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27957324</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : And now you can go to college to be a drone pilot<br><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>While most jobs flying drones currently are military-related, universities and colleges expect that to change by 2015, when the Federal Aviation Administration is due to release regulations for unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace. Once those regulations are in place, the FAA predicts that 10,000 commercial drones will be operating in the U.S. within five years.<br><br>Although just three schools currently offer degrees in piloting unmanned aircraft, many others &#150; including community colleges &#150; offer training for remote pilots. And those numbers figure are set to increase, with some aviation industry analysts predicting drones will eventually come to dominate the U.S. skies in terms of jobs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16726198-anticipating-domestic-boom-colleges-rev-up-drone-piloting-programs?lite" >openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20&middot;&middot;&middot;ams?lite</A><br><br>Welcome to the future, or as one of our drones said to me, 'flying meat bags are endangered species'.  I must admit I was concerned about the Arnie picture in its hanger with 'Traitor' written below it.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27957324</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:18:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27957249</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted :  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>Paranoid delusions about black helicopters hovering over an area will soon be out of date: The latest scary spy apparatus lives 20,000 feet up, turning 30 or more square miles into live video sharp enough to spot individual people walking around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/argus-drone-spots-you-20-000-feet-camera-phone-sensors-1C8149730" >www.nbcnews.com/technology/futur&middot;&middot;&middot;C8149730</A><br><br>Don't under estimate how good sensor technology is getting.  Now being able to scan 30 sq miles at a time, sounds like something a police department would love to have to track baddies.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27957249</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:32:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27893432</link>
<description><![CDATA[OZO posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can...</p></div>and related:<br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>Interestingly there are people who think the sensors are an invasion of privacy and others who think they are inadequate for flight.</p></div>One thing is to watch a remote target from a distance (potentially violating their privacy) and another is to correctly access safety of surrounding 3D-area full with flying objects within. If it's not obvious yet, next time try to drive your car looking ahead only through x12 binoculars...<br><br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>The FAA was to have picked 6 cities to host UAVs last month from a rumored list of 30 interested cities, but delayed their decision based on privacy concerns, not technology concerns.<br></p></div>It's good to know that there are some people who still value privacy of others... not trying to monetize on selling snooping devices and related technologies.<br><br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>The other thing is if my drone is going down, I don't mind going vertical if it means I miss everything, ie my drone doesn't even register on the importance scale (ie I'm not trying to save it) unless of course it has ordinance onboard in which case a nice big bay is always a good place to lose the boom to (reason why the English Channel is full of all sorts of goodies).<br> </p></div>I don't care about your ordinance (which could make things even worse) or cost of your lost equipment at all. But what if your home is right beneath? Or may be mine, or may be someone else's? I know that you, trying to sell the drones, don't care. But ask the rest of the people. Do they want to see your drone to go vertical right above their heads?<br><small>--<br>Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27893432</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:15:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27892671</link>
<description><![CDATA[NormanS posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1846118" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1846118');">Blogger</a>:</said><p>Candlestick Park where the 49ers plays is a bit of a trip from San Francisco. They are moving roughly 50 or 60 miles to a new stadium in the Santa Clara/San Jose area soon. <br> </p></div>Actually, it is probably closer to 40 miles between "The Stick"  and the new stadium under construction in the City of Santa Clara. I wonder if they will cal the cheerleading squad, "The Clarabelles"?<br><small>--<br>Norman<br>~Oh Lord, why have you come<br>~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27892671</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:20:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27892531</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : The FAA was to have picked 6 cities to host UAVs last month from a rumored list of 30 interested cities, but delayed their decision based on privacy concerns, not technology concerns.<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=202984" >wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&middot;&middot;&middot;D=202984</A><br><br>Interestingly there are people who think the sensors are an invasion of privacy and others who think they are inadequate for flight.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27892531</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:40:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27891137</link>
<description><![CDATA[mbeckman posted : Link logger,<br><br>The reality is that drones safely operating in US civil airspace are FAR in the future - a decade at least - given the state of technology. I dearly hope by then you have given at least a cursory glance at the plentiful documentation explaining how aircraft separation actually works today. You would know that your "SanFran" scenario is impossible. <br><br>Surrounding every large airport in the US, and the majority of mid-sized ones, is a complex layer cake of airspace that all aircraft require specific clearance and unique radar transponder code tracking in order to enter. In this environment, under the visual flight rules which drones must operate, many instructions are given that require visually identifying and responding to nearby aircraft. For example, a controller might instruct "Learjet N314A, traffic is a Cessna at 10 o'clock and five miles. When you pass him, enter downwind for runway 13R." This requires immediately acquiring and identifying the called traffic and responding to the controller with precise, responsive, close-in maneuvering. No drone pilot could accomplish this safely with today's camera slew rates and visibility sphere. <br><br>That you don't know this indicates you should learn the fundamentals of aviation in-flight operations before positing anything about drones working in the civilian world.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27891137</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:39:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27890643</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1140294" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1140294');">Blackbird</a>:</said><p>The problem is that most motorcycle-automobile accidents occur as simple failure-to-yield types (a car pulling out of a side-street, turning right-on-red, turning across traffic into a side-street/entrance, etc), where subsequently the auto driver states he "didn't see" the moving cycle that he hit.<br></p></div>Shoots to hell their argument for requiring LOUD motorbikes for safety reasons.<br><br>To pay for these drones they will likely cover then in neon billboards (think Blade Runner), so visibility shouldn't be a problem.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27890643</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:55:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27890627</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1071835" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1071835');">mbeckman</a>:</said><p>"Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic."<br><br>Link Logger,<br><br>I'm a helicopter pilot. We fly at 500 feet AGL, out of the flow of fixed wing traffic, which fly enroute only at 1000' AGL and above. By law.  Drones will be operating at both high and low altitudes, breaking the existing physical separation between fast fixed wing and slower rotary wing aircraft. That's an unacceptable increase in risk and a recipe for catastrophe. <br><br>You should do some study about how aviation actually works before reeling off fantastical theories.<br> </p></div>Lets say your in San Fran and you and your police helicopter get a call to check out a possible shooter in Walnut Park, but that is on the approach to San Fran International which is pretty much on the other side of the freeway, now what happens?  The point I was making was in pretty much every major city there is a major airport or airports where you might not have the vertical separation needed to wander around as you please no matter what your flying. Put up a RQ-4 and who cares about commercial air traffic.<br><br>And who says that a drone has to be fixed wing, maybe they are looking at a MQ-8 as drones come in all shapes and sizes and capabilities anymore.  Maybe they want to deploy a situational drone like a Wasp that the officer pulled out of the trunk of his cruiser and deployed to get an overview of a situation before the helicopter could get there.<br><br>The reality is drones are the future, and the transition has begun, for example the 138th FS switched from F16s to MQ-9 Reapers so of course anyone that uses aircraft (be it fixed or rotary wing) will be considering drones as a possible replacement.<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27890627</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:42:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887893</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blackbird posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>I have to disagree with you as the reason why motorcycle are involved in more accidents has to do with the speed at which they travel relative to the speed of cars, as they tend to travel faster which means they are constantly moving into and out of blind spots and hence statically spend more time in blind spots then cars.  If you and me are driving cars down the freeway, typically we will travel at the same speed (likely over the posted limit), but we will setup such that we can see each other (ie you won't sit in my blind spot).  Now motorbikes tend to drive faster then cars means they are passing more cars when means they are passing through more blind spots, hence the majority of the problem (one of the reasons for speed limits)....</p></div>The problem is that most motorcycle-automobile accidents occur as simple failure-to-yield types (a car pulling out of a side-street, turning right-on-red, turning across traffic into a side-street/entrance, etc), where subsequently the auto driver states he "didn't see" the moving cycle that he hit. While in some cases, the cycles may have been going abnormally fast, in most cases they were not. Of the six or seven motorcycle accidents involving friends, of which I have some close personal knowledge, every one involved a car pulling onto or across the road directly in front of a legally-operated and legal-speed motorcycle. This is the key reason that (at least at one era in time and in most places) motorcycles were required to run with their headlight on: to at least increase their visual detectability. Unfortunately a single headlight, while it does increase visual detectability under low-light conditions, does little to reveal the nearness or velocity of the cycle. Those perceptions require the light source or object be physically wide enough in the visual field for the eye to discern the rate of increase in size, which is the apparent increase in separation distance between multiple lights or apparent edges of the approaching object. That necessarily requires at least two discernable headlights spaced far enough apart to resolve both at distance.  A single headlight or the unilluminated edges of a small profile simply will not provide the visual information in a timely manner.<br><br>All of this becomes far more acute in an airborne setting where the closing velocities and the potential directions of approach between objects are much greater (existing in 3 dimensions instead of 2). <br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow).  The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic....</p></div>The problem here is that many, if not most, aircraft don't fly in nicely marked-out corridors at set altitudes, evenly spaced out in-between. Only those under ATC and using transponders can be made to obey such restrictions, and then really only in regions of airport approach. The further problem is that most drone missions require at least part of the flight profile to be at multiple thousands of feet to view an adequate coverage area, only after broad survey lowering their altitude to multiple hundreds of feet or less if needed. The lower the drone, the greater the risk of its detection and some kind of counteraction being taken (if only destroying the "stuff"), as well as increasing the risks of it colliding with birds or being buffeted by the increased air turbulence above local landforms. Unless the drones are required <i>at all times</i> to operate below aircraft altitude minimums (which in most areas are far lower than you might imagine), the potential for air disaster with the increasing use of small drones will only increase until the unthinkable does, in fact, occur. <br><small>--<br>“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887893</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:33:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887245</link>
<description><![CDATA[mbeckman posted : "Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic."<br><br>Link Logger,<br><br>I'm a helicopter pilot. We fly at 500 feet AGL, out of the flow of fixed wing traffic, which fly enroute only at 1000' AGL and above. By law.  Drones will be operating at both high and low altitudes, breaking the existing physical separation between fast fixed wing and slower rotary wing aircraft. That's an unacceptable increase in risk and a recipe for catastrophe. <br><br>You should do some study about how aviation actually works before reeling off fantastical theories.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887245</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:42:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887239</link>
<description><![CDATA[mbeckman posted : Link Logger,<br><br>You simply don't know what you're talking about. The sensors in drones give operators nowhere near the visual acuity and collision avoidance capability of human pilots. The idea that a drone pilot has anything approaching a panoramic view with the slew rates of human eyes is a total fantasy. You're falling for the "CSI" effect: believing science fiction represents today's technical capability.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887239</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:34:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887054</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : I have to disagree with you as the reason why motorcycle are involved in more accidents has to do with the speed at which they travel relative to the speed of cars, as they tend to travel faster which means they are constantly moving into and out of blind spots and hence statically spend more time in blind spots then cars.  If you and me are driving cars down the freeway, typically we will travel at the same speed (likely over the posted limit), but we will setup such that we can see each other (ie you won't sit in my blind spot).  Now motorbikes tend to drive faster then cars means they are passing more cars when means they are passing through more blind spots, hence the majority of the problem (one of the reasons for speed limits).<br><br>Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow).  The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic.<br><br>The other thing is if my drone is going down, I don't mind going vertical if it means I miss everything, ie my drone doesn't even register on the importance scale (ie I'm not trying to save it) unless of course it has ordinance onboard in which case a nice big bay is always a good place to lose the boom to (reason why the English Channel is full of all sorts of goodies).<br><br>Blake<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27887054</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:21:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27886925</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blackbird posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/356416" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=356416');">Link Logger</a>:</said><p>Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best).  I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore. ...<br> </p></div>Most police drones will be significantly smaller than a light airplane... which means the visual cross-section they present will be far harder for others to detect. It's much like the problem of motorcycles on roadways... most cycle-car collisions occur because a motorcycle subtends a much smaller visual angle than a car at the same distance and approach speed, and this is tremendously significant when a car driver is looking down a road for oncoming traffic before he pulls out. Too often, he simply cannot discern the changing motion angle of the cycle... that is, it appears either invisible or as a fixed object to his glances.<br><br>In piloted aircraft, this phenomenon gets magnified many-fold, since the velocities of the objects involved can typically be anywhere from 10 to 50 times greater than the scenario with automobiles and motorcycles. The ability to visually detect a moving object against a background depends on the ability to discern the changing position of that object against the relatively slow-moving background. Doing this repeatedly or continuously produces a sense of object velocity and direction. But if the object is small and moving fast, there will usually be great difficulty in picking up the object as it moves - that is, at best it will seem to pop in and out of view as it moves across various background contrasts. This robs the brain of its necessary data updates for detection and decision-making, which causes impairment of its ability to even sense movement, let alone determine direction and velocity. All of this occurs against a backdrop of potentially very high-speed closing velocities where increased detection and faster reaction is actually demanded.<br><br>Frankly, there's little concern about the low-probability case of two drones hitting each other... other than the small area affected by the debris field, it's not likely to be a big deal. But one should care a great deal if they're in a conventional aircraft (commercial or general aviation) that gets mid-air'd by a drone that was too small to see and avoid. Moreover, the pilot of a police drone is <u>not</u> going to be staring at 15 different, omni-directed sensors on the craft looking for airplanes - he's going to be staring at the primary down-looking sensor output that shows what ground objects are beneath and directly ahead of his flight path. These drones are not going to be equipped with effective collision-avoidance systems that somehow magically alert the operator to incoming traffic or automatically cause the drone to take effective evasive action... the former would be false-alarm prone and the loop-time too slow to be of any use, while the latter would cost far too much money to install and maintain for the drones to be economically feasible.<br><small>--<br>&#147;The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.&#148; A. de Tocqueville</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27886925</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:24:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27886804</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best).  I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore.<br><br>Blake<br>Hey for you next party, want some pyrotechnicals that are better then your neighbor's last party, no problem we are now renting MQ-9 Reapers for parties as nothing beats the pyrotechnical show of 14 hell fire missiles hitting your neighbors house.  Finally Shock and Awe for the average Joe who is just trying to keep up with (and maybe eliminate) those pesky Jones.<br><small>--<br>Vendor: Author of <A HREF="http://www.linklogger.com">Link Logger</a> which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27886804</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:28:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27884804</link>
<description><![CDATA[mbeckman posted : "Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes..."<br><br>Armed,<br><br>You're wrong, and you could well be dead wrong. Drones are dramatically more dangerous than manned helicopters and aircraft, because drones are technically incapable of complying with current aircraft traffic separation rules.  I'm an instrument rated pilot and also a licensed aerospace technician, and I can assure you that drone operators do not have the visual acuity through onboard video to "see and avoid" other aircraft in the visual flight rules (VFR) environment.  "See and avoid", not radar, is the only FAA-sanctioned method for maintaining aircraft separation in VFR, which are the only rules under which drones can operate. <br><br>  If a drone were to hit an airliner full of people, the results would likely be catastrophic. Perhaps you recall the Cerritos disaster in Los Angeles a few years ago? That happened despite four sets of active human observers, which are far more reliable than radar or remote video imaging. <br><br>Someday the technology may exist for safe mixing of drones and human-piloted aircraft.  That day is years, if not decades, away. Until then, drones must not be permitted to share airspace with civil aviation in the US.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27884804</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 01:11:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27677048</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blogger posted : Yes, SF is geographically small for such a major city. Consequently its population has remained fairly constant for many decades. I would guess it fluctuations between 750,000 and 850,000. As I recall it has gone up and down and up. There just isn't any room to expand. <br><br>The airport is a fair piece from San Francisco. <br><br>Candlestick Park where the 49ers plays is a bit of a trip from San Francisco. They are moving roughly 50 or 60 miles to a new stadium in the Santa Clara/San Jose area soon. <br><br>At least the SF Giants ballpark is in the city but then it naturally had to abut the waterline. No where else to put it in the City. <br><br>Actually the City's relative small size along with its many wonderful features makes it one of the nicest cities in the world, especially if you are not overly concerned with lots of locl government involvement with your life, (what you can and cannot do), and you're financially well off. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27677048</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:55:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27676941</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : Well even by living fairly close and going there every so often you taught me something new. I always assumed that San Francisco was easily the largest in population in that area. I would have bet money on it. :-)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27676941</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:26:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27676082</link>
<description><![CDATA[NormanS posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1846118" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1846118');">Blogger</a>:</said><p>Well good gosh, I'm not such a big fool after all. Only an uninformed poster. I say that as I realized I keyed off the THREAD TITLE: SF POLICE GETTING DRONES<br> </p></div>Some out-of-state folks see it on a San Francisco news web site and draw the wrong conclusion about coverage. Unlike, say, Denver metro, or Houston metro, the S.F. Bay Area has two urban centers with a population over 800,000, two more of at least 200,000, and a half dozen at over 100,000 apiece.<br><br>Top four cities in population:<br><br>&#8226; San José - 971,372<br>&#8226; San Francisco - 805,235<br>&#8226; Oakland - 395,817<br>&#8226; Fremont - 214,089<br><br>The over 100,000 cities are: Santa Rosa, Hayward, Sunnyvale, Concord, Santa Clara, Vallejo.<br><br>There are nine counties in the S.F. Bay Area. San Francisco is the only city in San Francisco County; they have the same boundary. Alameda and Santa Clara Counties have three cities apiece with population of at least 100,000.<br><br>So if it is reported on a S.F. news site, it isn't necessarily S.F. news.<br><small>--<br>Norman<br>~Oh Lord, why have you come<br>~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27676082</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:45:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675996</link>
<description><![CDATA[StuartMW posted : My meter went off the scale with that reply :D<br><small>--<br>Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!</small><div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap WIDTH=33%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/27675996?c=2046484&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyNzY2NzkyNS54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="2999 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=197 HEIGHT=135 SRC="/r0/download/2046484~249acfbb726da31277aba272d0d079c1/BS_meter.gif"></A><br>Sarcasm detector</TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675996</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:20:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675881</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blogger posted : Well good gosh, I'm not such a big fool after all. Only an uninformed poster. I say that as I realized I keyed off the THREAD TITLE: SF POLICE GETTING DRONES<br><br> :p]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675881</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:52:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675758</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blogger posted : Well don't I feel like the fool!  Nevertheless thanks for pointing out my error and misguided thinking. I sincerely appreciate it.  <br><br>Alameda, home of Oakland v San Francisco. Uh, some differences there between the two large major metropolitan cities.  <br><br>Now if we are talking Oakland toss in logistical support for the drones by Apache Longbows and Little Birds!  ;)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27675758</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:22:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27674635</link>
<description><![CDATA[sashwa posted : It's not the City.  It's Alameda County which is across the Bay from the City.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27674635</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:30:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673991</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blogger posted : San Francisco?  LOL!  The chances of it being implemented are about the same as the Golden Gate Bridge be repainted purple. <br><br>San Francisco?  If you know the City you have to ask yourself were there really people from there that thought they could sell such a sweeping idea? ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673991</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:33:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673292</link>
<description><![CDATA[NormanS posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/299537" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=299537');">sashwa</a>:</said><p>I believe that is Alameda County Sheriff Dept not SF police.<br> </p></div>And they apparently have Tank Police in Oakland, as well. I wonder if they have a tank police officer as cool as Leona Ozaki?<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion:_Tank_Police" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion:_Tank_Police</A><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Ozaki" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Ozaki</A><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd496/ShawnMerrow/anime/rights.jpg" >i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd4&middot;&middot;&middot;ghts.jpg</A><br><br><small>--<br>Norman<br>~Oh Lord, why have you come<br>~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673292</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:12:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673264</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/795407" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=795407');">Snowy</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1140294" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1140294');">Blackbird</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>... <br>IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.<br>... </p></div>And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.<br> </p></div>Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you.<br>The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse.<br>Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place.<br>Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course.<br><br><b>It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use.</b><br><br><i>"How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go"</i> before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen?<br>That's the issue, IMO<br> </p></div>Well...you're right. That is concise and good writing and you have asked the one question that cuts to the issue.<br><br>I will leave it at that.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27673264</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:02:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672903</link>
<description><![CDATA[Snowy posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1140294" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1140294');">Blackbird</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>... <br>IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.<br>... </p></div>And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.<br> </p></div>Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you.<br>The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse.<br>Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place.<br>Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course.<br><br><b>It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use.</b><br><br><i>"How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go"</i> before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen?<br>That's the issue, IMO]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672903</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:29:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672772</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blackbird posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>... <br>IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.<br>... </p></div>And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.<br><small>--<br>"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672772</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:55:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672670</link>
<description><![CDATA[StuartMW posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.<br></p></div>Not sure if it was intentional or not but that was funny :) <br><small>--<br>Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672670</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:29:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672636</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/181601" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=181601');">StuartMW</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p>That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27668949-">this post</a>. <br></p></div>BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types.<br> </p></div>Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.<br><br>It appears to me you are suggesting that a saying from 238 years ago overpowers all when discussing the issue of LEGAL use of drones. Worse it appears that if I don't agree with your thoughts on drones then it must be because I'm too dense to understand its great deep meaning.<br><br>My equally insulting reply is that blind allegiance to trite sayings leads to intellectual blindness. <br><br>I agree in the saying... I don't believe its completely applicable to the LEGAL use of drones in LE.<br><br>I'll say it for the last time.<br><br>IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT. <br><br>To believe otherwise is to believe that all tools used in LE must be banned because they have all been used illegally at one time or another and thus must come under purview of the quote.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672636</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:23:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672087</link>
<description><![CDATA[StuartMW posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p>That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27668949-">this post</a>. <br></p></div>BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types.<br><small>--<br>Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672087</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:56:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672041</link>
<description><![CDATA[OZO posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers.</p></div>Giving police drones will serve exactly that purpose - moving control from people to police. After huge investments made into drone surveillance industry and making it acceptable by public, looking at the sky you'll never know, what the drone is doing there. Is it helping to solve the extreme rare useful purpose (like you've mentioned in your earlier post here), or is it used to observe what people are doing in this area (any suspicious gathering of people in groups, bigger then 3 person? what they're doing? where they're going?) or it's simply watching you for completely unexpected reason. There will be no way to make any distinction or know the actual purpose of its usage... <br><br><div class="bquote"><p>To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.</p></div>That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27668949-">this post</a>. <br><br>And that's why those, who want that control over population in their hands, will always facilitate that fear and erosion of beliefs (not only Christian, BTW). Look at what Hollywood is flooding this county with - huge stream of horror, scifi, mystery, twilight movies and other similar BS. Then someday some guy after watching this trash all night long wakes up, and, loosing control over understanding the difference between reality and what he saw in those movies, starts shooting people around. Then those people start asking government for new surveillance tools to protect them from what could happen... Got the picture? <br><br><div class="bquote"><p>Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck.. <br> </p></div>I think you're right here...<br><small>--<br>Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27672041</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:46:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671590</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1632243" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1632243');">cosmicChuck</a>:</said><p>I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it.  With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously. <br> </p></div>I have a couple of issues with what you are saying in this paragraph. <br><br>1. You fail to describe why a drone is any more an invasion of privacy than an undercover cop watching you, or use of unmarked cars, or long range listening devices, or hilocopters, or DNA tests. Either they all violate our right or they all don't. ITS HOW THEY ARE USED NOT WHAT IS USED THAT IS OF CONCERN.<br><br>2. Upon election of a new President and the appointment of Supremes to match his religious and legal philosophy (IE litmus test judges at all Federal levels) any pretense to a supposed right to privacy will be erased from the law.  In case you don't know (or in need of a reminder) Roe VS Wade was based on the supposition of a right to privacy and to control ones body. The raillying call of the religious and extreme right is that privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not therefore an inalienable right. The movement is called fundamentalism and they apply it to the Bible and to the Constitution. <br><br>We are one vote on the Supreme Court away from overturning the concept of right to privacy and in doing so all other "privacy rights" will disappear too. This screams that its not the tools used to enforce laws but the application of the laws that is really scary.<br><br>Far too many people think conservatism means getting "gubberment out of our lives." But in reality its only the libertarian that believes that. Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers. <br><br>To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.<br><br>Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck.. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671590</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:12:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671311</link>
<description><![CDATA[Link Logger posted : I was really excited about this order as they asked us to paint flowers on the Hellfire missiles and put an old VW van logo on the nose of the MQ-9, so it was able to qualify for some 'culturally significant' programs to help cover the costs.<br><br>Blake<br>Edit it is a heck of a lot cheaper to run a drone then a helicopter so drones are the future in all sorts of areas.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671311</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:09:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671005</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/795407" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=795407');">Snowy</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. <br></p></div>That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point.<br>Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE.<br>Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that.<br>It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public. <br>It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance.<br> </p></div>Oh Snowy... do you expect me to respond to a reasoned post on this issue? :-) Do I have to put down my tin hat argument to discuss the issue? LOL<br><br>OK then, I'll try.<br><br>I'm not sure that police should not use drones because they not are readily available to the general public. That is not a test proscribed by law nor practiced in the past. I suppose a better example than cars would be helicopters and DNA testing. Neither is easily assessable to the public but we tend to accept their use.<br><br>That we are inventing devices that can be more easily used for excessive surveillance is worthy of great concern. I have a problem with the idea that a device can be set up to monitor legal activity of the general populace on a continual basis. In this case say keeping a drones in the air 24/7 as it peers into our houses and backyards looking for someone pissing under their tree. But to use them in an investigation or to look for a specific issue... say trailing a suspect in committing a crime seems to me to be a proper application of a useful LE tool. <br><br>But even then its a matter of semantics. Is a patrol car driving through a neighborhood really nothing more than mass monitoring for legal behaviour? So we already have an established accepted and lawful application that LE can observe the populace without any suspicion of illegal behaviour.<br><br>To me its the law that is in play here and not the device. Take GPS tracking devices as an example. The cops just can't legally attach a tracking device to your car and follow you indefinitely even if they have suspicion that you are involved in illegal activity. They can try to but the law can and does get in the way. <br><br>New devices are making it harder to get away with crime but I agree they may come at a cost of more mass surveillance and dangerous abuse. So we must insist that our courts and law making bodies define the differences to protect our freedoms and not just blindly prohibit use of new technology by LE because it might be abused.<br><br>Now back to tin hat and paranoia land... although I did enjoy your thoughtful response and appreciate having a normal discussion rather than a war of trite sayings. :-)     ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27671005</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:04:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670071</link>
<description><![CDATA[Snowy posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. <br></p></div>That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point.<br>Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE.<br>Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that.<br>It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public. <br>It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670071</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:41:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670029</link>
<description><![CDATA[Kearnstd posted : that is exactly why I am against all forms of automatic enforcement.  A good cop knows to view the whole situation.  from conditions when he saw the violation to the conditions of the road.<br><br>the camera knows none of this and its data is packaged at some third party company and mailed out.  likely by people with no policing experience.<br><br>Cities love them because they hate good cops,  Good cops know when a ticket is needed(such as blowing the red going over the limit.)  Good cops limit an endless revenue stream.  Same with speed cameras.  on a clear dry day with minimal traffic I know for a fact here in NJ one can cruise along at speeds that are most certainly very much ticket worthy,  State PD will ignore until one goes too far above or if they are driving unsafe(weaving through the slower cars like they are in the indy 500)<br><small>--<br>[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670029</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:43:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670006</link>
<description><![CDATA[cosmicChuck posted : It is painfully obvious you are quite oblivious to the intersection camera debate.  Maybe you should watch less TV and spend time educating yourself on matters you feel necessary to give your opinion on.  Your awful likening these to drones (much worse than a camera at an intersection) shows you are completely inept to speak on either topic.  These "whiners" I would say have a right to complain.  The tickets are an exorbitant fine the majority of which your community will never see.  You too may one day receive mail from a business in a far off state which turns out to be a citation.  This company has been caught shortening the length of time of yellow yield lights below the federal minimum (see Chicago).  There is no oversight as to how these cameras are calibrated or how often.  I hope you are never cutoff by a cube van and cannot see the light as had happened to me.  In a 25 mph zone the photo's showed I was going 21 mph at the stripe & 23 mph in the intersection (as I sped up to avoid anyone fast off the light change).  However, it failed to show the towering truck which cut me off and obstructed my view of the light.  A police officer would've seen the delivery truck driver decide, without notice, to make a Left rather than a Right despite being in the Right lane (I was in the middle lane & fortunately far enough behind him).  The officer has the ability to use reason and logic unlike a photo-machine. I went to court and entered my guilty plea only to later educate myself on the unscrupulous business practices of intersection camera companies.  I wasn't too thrilled to find out my county saw about $200 and the corporation in China funneled through a corporation in Australia got more than $300 of the fine.  How do you feel about the majority of the "revenue" not even going to your cash strapped township or county but rather to an overseas corporation?<br>I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it.  With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27670006</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:14:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669939</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.</p></div>Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day:<br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/151802" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=151802');">jaykaykay</a>:</said><p>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"<br> </p></div>This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us... <br><br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. <br></p></div>We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality.<br> </p></div>You have  been less than convincing that using drones in lawful methods is any more an erosion of our rights than using say a helicopter, under cover surveillance cars, binoculars, infared machines, high powered guns, mace, tazers, dogs, undercover ops, riding bikes in the park, or using horses or wearing sneakers when on foot patrol. <br><br>You can quote old saws but it doesn't change the fact that if your argument holds water it has to apply to all tools use by the police. In fact there is no law in our Constitution, or in the plethora of federal, state or local jurisdiction laws that says modern inventions cannot be used by police unless they were available in 1776.<br><br>If your contention is that police can abuse power (and they can and do sometimes) then that  issue is for the courts as they apply the use of these new tools. But I find it interesting that the hue and cry from the unwashed is that the police hands are tied by legal restrictions of liberals and criminals are running rampant in the streets.<br><br>So despite your hysteria drones are not the issue but proper use of our laws in using them is. <br><br>I'm on your side on not eroding our rights but we separate quickly when you argue that drones are bad but cars and helicopters and binoculars are fine.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669939</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:33:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669924</link>
<description><![CDATA[Kearnstd posted : Just wait,  a drone will crash into a house and the cops will weasel out of the huge lawsuit and the defense contractor that built it will get mysterious immunity even though it was their faulty aircraft.<br><small>--<br>[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669924</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:23:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669644</link>
<description><![CDATA[OZO posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.</p></div>Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day:<br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/151802" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=151802');">jaykaykay</a>:</said><p>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"<br> </p></div>This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us... <br><br><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. <br></p></div>We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality.<br><small>--<br>Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669644</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:29:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669368</link>
<description><![CDATA[Blackbird posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p> ...<br>They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? <br><br>Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...<br> </p></div>Dangerous? ... Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes? ... </p></div> The only real direct comparison at present is for one of the few agencies that actually flies drones and other kinds of aircraft, the USAF:<br><A HREF="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-18/drones-most-accident-prone-u-dot-s-dot-air-force-craft-bgov-barometer" >Drones Most Accident-Prone U.S. Air Force Craft</A> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>...<br>The U.S. military&#146;s three biggest drones, made by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., are the most accident-prone aircraft in the Air Force fleet.<br>...<br>The Air Force in a 15-year period through Sept. 30 recorded 129 accidents involving its medium- and high-altitude drones: the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk. ...<br><br>Vertical-lift aircraft, including helicopters and the tilt- rotor V-22 Osprey made by Boeing Co. (BA) and Textron Inc. (TXT), had the second-highest accident rate, with 6.33 per 100,000 flight hours. <br>...<br>The Predator, made by General Atomics, has had 9.26 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, while its Reaper has had 7.96. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br>Obviously with other, smaller types of drones that civilian agencies will probably use, these military craft will not be equivalent in safety. For the smaller drones, the safety records are... unpublished. So we'll be left to assume the operation and maintenance performed by your friendly local police (or whomever) will exceed the US military's aircraft maintenance and standards or the FAA monitored/inspected commercial and general aviation requirements. Which, frankly should scare the daylights out of anyone. In particular, there's the operation of a drone in potentially crowded airspace: <A HREF="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/faa-documents-raise-questions-about-safety-of-drones-in-u-s-airspace/" >FAA Documents Raise Questions About Safety of Drones in U.S. Airspace</A>  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>...Many drones and other small aircraft don&#146;t have elaborate on-board detection systems to help them avoid crashes in the air, said Mel Beckman, a California mechanic and pilot who&#146;s been flying for more than 30 years. People who don&#146;t fly planes often are surprised to learn that pilots are required to &#147;see and avoid,&#148; which is exactly what it sounds like &#150; keep a naked eye out for other aircraft. "There&#146;s no way for a drone pilot to do that,&#148; Beckman said. &#147;He&#146;s on the ground, and he&#146;s looking through a small aperture..."<br>...<br>The FAA predicted four years ago that a sophisticated collision-avoidance system for drones could cost as much as $2 billion and was still far into the future. Regulators also anticipated then that a framework for broader drone flights in the United States wouldn&#146;t be ready until sometime around 2020, according to the Government Accountability Office (.PDF), the investigative arm of Congress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><small>--<br>"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669368</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:16:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669162</link>
<description><![CDATA[goalieskates posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/1157186" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1157186');">quatrix</a>:</said><p>Look at the people who whine about red-light cameras.  Few people complain about rolling through red lights being illegal because there aren't enough police to bust them for it.  But as soon as cameras make it much more efficient, they whine and claim it's only about "revenue".<br> </p></div>Probably because red-light cameras have been shown definitively to (a) not increase safety, and (b) raise revenue.<br><br>Are you seriously equating drones to red-light cameras?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669162</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:58:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: San Fransisco police getting drones</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669112</link>
<description><![CDATA[armed posted : <div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/755055" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=755055');">OZO</a>:</said><p><div class="bquote"><said>said by <a href="/profile/224491" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=224491');">armed</a>:</said><p>What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?<br> </p></div>They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? <br><br>Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...<br> </p></div>Dangerous? So what about helicopters or airplanes? What about cops with weapons? What about cop cars in car accidents? What about tazers that kill? Is it only new technology that must meet unstated safety requirements? Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes?<br><br>I had a neighbor that set his house on fire then hid on the hill behind my house with guns. They had no idea where he was because he had delay timers to start the fires. He damned near burned down the whole neighborhood.<br><br>They found him because they tracked his cell phone and used helicopters to pin point him. I had helicopters hoovering over the top of my house so low I could see the guys inside and I'm glad they were there.<br><br>So they used modern technology to track him. He was angry, dangerous and armed and committed suicide as the formed a line of cops to go up and get him. What.... they should have used nothing invented in the last 75 tears to track him?<br><br>Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.<br><br>In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. <br><br> ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-San-Fransisco-police-getting-drones-27669112</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:32:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
