Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft 236

Posted by kdawson from the all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace dept.
54mc writes "The Houston Police Department was filmed testing an unmanned aircraft in a secretive gathering on Wednesday. The media were not allowed into the event; however they were told that the aircraft would be used for 'mobility' and 'tactical' issues, and possibly even for writing traffic tickets. The aircraft has a wingspan of 10 feet and is said to cost from $30K to $1M. Pictures and video are available at the link." The article mentions that the craft was being operated by staff from a private firm called Insitu, Inc.. The device in the video looks like the firm's ScanEagle.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft More

Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft

Comments Filter:

  • said to cost from $30K to $1M (Score:3, Insightful)

    by celardore ( 844933 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:20PM (#21463985)
    That's a very broad price range.
    • True. But even at the upper end of that price range, it's substantially less than a manned helicopter, and most urban police forces have access to those right now. (And that's just the cost of the machine, not even getting into the cost of having a pilot standing by to fly the thing, maintenance, etc.)

      $30k sounds like a lowball number; I have a hard time believing you could get any kind of complete UAV system delivered and functioning for that price. (Maybe that's the marginal cost of 'one additional aircra

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gatzke ( 2977 )

        Big RC plane + video camera? 30k sounds reasonable to me.

        I think the SC has ruled about using technology to spy on you. If it is normal (visual) it is ok. I think the cops got in trouble for using IR from a helicopter to spot marijuana green houses (abnormal heat signature). Since you don't see IR normally, you can't randomly use that to bust people. But visual cameras should be fine, since technically you could put a human up in a plane and do the same thing, only less efficiently and at a greater cos

        • Re:said to cost from $30K to $1M (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hazem ( 472289 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:59PM (#21464297) Journal
          You have no expectation of privacy in public. Maybe that's why they call it "public". Don't like it? Stay home and close your windows.

          I'm just curious. Is there anything that the state could do in "public" where you would finally say, "that's enough"? Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample? Would you still say, "don't like it, just stay home"? I hope you would - and if so, there must be a line somewhere between the two. Where would you draw that line? And does it seem so radical to you that some of us may choose to draw that line closer to protecting privacy and freedom of movement than you might?
          • There's no expectation that an average person would gain the ability to perform a retinal scan or a full-body search on me just by my walking down the street. They would, however, be able to see where I'm going and even follow me if they so chose, and they could collect fingerprints and possibly DNA by checking items that I've touched along the way.

            If an average person is able to do those things, why should I object to the fact that the police have the ability to do it as well (though pretty obviously not

          • Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample?

            My copy of the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which pretty well covers your hypothetical. Perhaps you should check your copy to see if it really guarantees you the right to be free from being unreasonably looked at, as you seem to think it does.

        • But what's technology? Where do you draw the line. If you argue that the cops shouldn't be able to use infra-red detection because they can't see infrared light, then they shouldn't be able to use a helicopter because cops can't fly. And even if we allow them to fly, they aren't allowed to use binoculars because that enhances their vision, by making things larger. Which is very close to infrared cameras enhancing the vision of the cop to see beyond the regular frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gatzke ( 2977 )

            Binoculars only augment your sight in the visible spectrum.

            Helicopters only get you places faster than normal walking.

            Both cases augment natural ability to see and move.

            IR is still not normally visible to people. But I also read the cops were going through power bills and flagging the high ones, they were obviously running grow lights...

            It is like the CCT cameras in London (and now in some places in the states). This really just augments a normal police beat. Given unlimited resources, they could place c
            • They may not be able to watch through your TV, but they can watch what you're watching on TV and tell if you're watching that communist propaganda on PBS or any other station that isn't ESPN or Fox News ;)
        • You have no expectation of privacy in public. Maybe that's why they call it "public". Don't like it? Stay home and close your windows.

          I DARE you to try pulling something like tracking people in public as a private citizen, see how that works out for you. Stalker.
          • Photographers do it all the time. Whether it's paparazzi or your local news. It happens. If you were more interesting, you might find out first hand.
    • The range is not really that surprising.

      For 30k (or 10k if you don't get ripped off), you can build an aircraft that relies on GPS + digital compass with a built in map for navigation, uses sonar for handling weaknesses in the map (e.g. the map didn't mention this aircraft just in front of me), and stores/transmits pictures (over 3G).

      However, if you want to have onboard video processing then things start getting expensive very fast. A processor and graphics card powerful enough to do image processing is ve
  • I didn't know transformers existed.
    • Seriously, it would probably be used to track the speeds of cars and then call in a cop in a car to write the actual ticket. Same as aerial enforcement of speed now, except for the lack of pilot.

      -b.

      • I would go with this one - here in Ohio we have pretty strict laws on what the cops can and can't do in terms of citations/arrests. For example, they aren't allowed to pull you over in an unmarked car, they aren't allowed to sit without their running lights on to conceal themselves, etc. There's quite a bit of law requiring them to be visible and labeled as police. Moreover, you can't be cited for speeding by a machine (this is currently under scrutiny in Cleveland)

        That being said, this vehicle's design w
  • I'm not sure why this story was filed under "privacy" rather than "technology". Nobody's freaked out by police helicopters, whether they are used to find traffic offenders, in police chases, or as observation posts for police raids. Using unmanned aircraft instead is a no-brainer. They are cheaper to operate, can stay up longer, and people don't die when they collide [wcbstv.com] (though this incident was with civillian helicopters).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 )
      The difference here is that a police helicopter is extremely expensive, and is therefore reserved for only the most serious of crimes. There are understandably very few of them, and I'll agree that they're mostly a good thing.

      However, if they truly can purchase a UAV for $30k, you'll see these things buzzing around EVERYWHERE. I don't doubt that if purchased and deployed in quantity, you could purchase and operate a UAV for the fraction of the cost of a patrol car.

      Earlier in the year, I got to get up clo

      • The difference here is that a police helicopter is extremely expensive, and is therefore reserved for only the most serious of crimes.

        Maybe you don't live in a big city, so you don't know how it works, but many cities maintain helicopters in the air at all times.

        When I lived in Houston, the police department and the Harris County Sheriff's Department each maintained a helicopter in the air 24/7/365. This was from 1999 to 2003. Sometimes there were two HPD choppers in the air. But there was always at

        • It's no big deal. It's been going on for years. All they've done is reduce the risk of killing someone (in the helicopter).

          and most likely at the cost of increasing the risk of killing people on the ground. These small unmanned planes like to crash. I know because I used to work for a defense company that builds them. That is my main argument against using these things for non-wartime surveillance. Until they have FAA approval and can maintain commercial type safety ratings, they should NOT be flown over highly populated areas.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      Nobody's freaked out by police helicopters, whether they are used to find traffic offenders, in police chases, or as observation posts for police raids.

      "Nobody"? You must not have seen KDawson's earlier posts, or else you would not be making such sweeping generalizations.

      You and I (and him, of course) can use anything we want, but if the police look into using anything other than horses to chase suspects, or magnifying glass to investigate crimes, well, that's an alarming new development with grave priv

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by phliar ( 87116 )

      ... and people don't die when they collide
      Why do you think that UAVs will only collide with other UAVs?

    • A difference (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:41PM (#21464175) Homepage Journal
      Normaly copters are used to supplement an active investigation. If you see one, you know something is up ( or its just the local TV station running traffic reports.. )

      These things will just fly around and look at everyone, hoping to catch you with your pants down. Later they will just record every move everyone makes, regardless of any suspicion. Do you want that? I don't. Unless I'm under active court supported suspicion, they don't have a right to 'follow' me around, 'just in case'.

      • Normaly copters are used to supplement an active investigation. If you see one, you know something is up ( or its just the local TV station running traffic reports.. )

        These things will just fly around and look at everyone, hoping to catch you with your pants down. Later they will just record every move everyone makes, regardless of any suspicion. Do you want that? I don't. Unless I'm under active court supported suspicion, they don't have a right to 'follow' me around, 'just in case'.

        See my earlier comm

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      ...people don't die when they collide...

      They do if one of these things collides with their Piper Cub or the 737 they are riding on.

      • They do if one of these things collides with their Piper Cub or the 737 they are riding on.
        I forget which comedian said it (Carlin?), but: You get on the plane; I'll get in the plane.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by HalAtWork ( 926717 )
      If they're remote controlled, there's always the possibility that someone will usurp control and you might end up with this? [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by EricTheMad ( 603880 )

        If they're remote controlled, there's always the possibility that someone will usurp control and you might end up with this?
        The largest of the planes used in the September 11th attacks was a 767-223ER. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 395,000lb, cruises at 568mph, and can carry up to 24,000 gallons of fuel.

        The ScanEagle UAV has a maximum takeoff weight of 37.9lb, cruises at 56mph, and can carry up to 2 gallons of fuel. I think our buildings are safe.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      ...and, of course, the savings in these costs will enable law enforcement to put 10x as many of them in the air. Once they justify their existence through additional revenues, another 10x increase can be expected. We should all be excited over the prospect of having our driving speeds monitors continuously every moment we are in a car. Eventually, such monitoring doesn't need to stop at simple speed checks either. It's great news that technology makes these government responsibilities easier and cheape

  • is said to cost from $30K to $1M.

    Wow, a million may buy from 1 to 33 of these birds... Very specific.

  • Cost? (Score:4, Funny)

    by phantomcircuit ( 938963 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:27PM (#21464053) Homepage
    $30K to $1M? Why not just admit that you don't know how much it costs?
    • Do you know how much a car costs? You can buy one for $500 and you can buy one for $100,000...that's six times as big a ratio.

      rj

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by c_forq ( 924234 )
        Not quite. There should be some idea of the cost, for they have video. To use bad car analogies, it would be more like looking at a single make/model. For example, a new Ford Mustang can range from $17,000 to $45,000. Or, to be closer to what is used here, a Piper Cub ranges from $20,000 to $60,000. Still only a 3x difference, nothing like the 33x gap in the article summary.
  • I can't possibly see this thing helping local law enforcement much. It's obviously not going to land next to you and physically write a ticket out, but it would probably take lots of pictures. This would be so very intrusive to have some sort of plane constantly watching over you.
    • Just as "intrusive" as a police car patrolling the streets. Get off the streets if you don't want to be watched.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Heliogabalus ( 1193435 )
        No, actually. A policeman generally can't see in your backyard. A policeman isn't able to see everyone in the city at once. And a policeman doesn't resemble some sort of oppressive-see-all machinery. You can not see a policeman at every turn, so it doesn't seem nearly as intrusive to have cops, as it would be to have a piece of spy equipment buzzing over your head.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • On an August afternoon, all of Houston glows IR.
      • Marijuana hydroponics is a huge issue for Houston.

        No one is forcing anyone to smoke the pot. Make the stuff legal and let the cops work on crimes that actually hurt people.

        -b.

  • SkyTag (Score:3, Funny)

    by garlicbready ( 846542 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:34PM (#21464111)
    Cool finaly a chance to try out my skytag
    http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tracker.shtml [thinkgeek.com]

    • Re:SkyTag (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jamstar7 ( 694492 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @02:21PM (#21464471)
      I'd think using one of these laser trackers in the US will get you a visit from some humorless suits, especially if they believe you're using that laser to paint an aircraft to give an aimpoint for a followup missile. Remember, it's not what you're doing that gets you into trouble, it's what they think you're doing.

      What would be interesting is somebody homebrewing an EMP cannon and tracking system, then shooting these UAVs down when they cross a property line, then suing the city/county/state for putting them in the air over private property. Bound to kick up taxes in that neighborhood. Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work against the authorities? Would the city/county/state arrest the property owner for 'destruction of government property', 'obstructing justice', or 'interfering with a criminal investigation' even if there is no clear-cut 'crimes' being committed and no warrants issued at the time of the overflight?

      Hmmmmmmmmmm. I think I'll head down to Radio Shack...

      • Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work against the authorities?

        The short answer is no. It's been tried.

        There was a case called California v. Ciraolo which dealt with exactly such an issue. The police used a helicopter to look down onto someone's property to search for marijuana plants. The defendant argued that it was a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court said that so long as the police are in navigable airspace it's no

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

        What would be interesting is somebody homebrewing an EMP cannon and tracking system, then shooting these UAVs down when they cross a property line, then suing the city/county/state for putting them in the air over private property.

        You probably don't own the air or mineral rights to your land.
        In other words, you don't own the air over your property.
        So unless they're harrassing you, I doubt there is much you can sue for.

        Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work against the authorities?

        Maybe...
        OTOH, Police don't need a warrant to look at things that are in "plain sight"... which is a somewhat flexible concept. Either way, fscking around with their UAV would definitely be destruction of gov't property.

      • Would the city/county/state arrest the property owner for 'destruction of government property', 'obstructing justice', or 'interfering with a criminal investigation' even if there is no clear-cut 'crimes' being committed and no warrants issued at the time of the overflight?

        Well, they could call it interfereing with an investigation--as soon as you shot it down, you committed a crime by shooting down the first investigator to respond to the scene of the crime you just committed. That's government logic.
      • Texans.
        My great-great-(etc)- uncle William B. Travis came down to Texas to help straighten you guys problems out once before; I do NOT expect once of these things to maintain airworthiness, due to intense over-perforation, for over 5 minutes, you hear? Don't make me come down there!
        Seriously. The debate over legalities is all well and good, but we all know it's just wrong, correct? Blow that sucker out of the air with extreme prejudice.

      • What would be interesting is somebody homebrewing an EMP cannon and tracking system, then shooting these UAVs down when they cross a property line, then suing the city/county/state for putting them in the air over private property.

        No lawyer worth his salt would take the suit - as it's long been established under the law that owners of private property don't own the airspace above them.

        Would a suit based on the assumption that an overflight by a UAV be considered a warrantless search work ag

  • Hopefully they'll consider this a supplement to officers on the street, and not a substitute. The tech path has bitten many an intelligence agency in the ass as they drop HUMINT in favor of tech.

  • I for one ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:40PM (#21464159)
    I for one want to see if the same "+5 informative", "+5 insightful" inflamed comments about how a similar thing happening in Venezuela [slashdot.org] was a proof of a totalitarian government will be repeated on this thread, by the same set of people.
    • I referred to Venezuela as a totalitarian regime in that thread, although not because they were buying this type of device. On the other hand, I find this type of development threatening. The thing I am most bothered by this sort of thing (red light cameras as well), is the assumption that the person who owns the car is driving at the time of the infraction. Although there is also the prevalence of surveillance that is bothersome as well.
      One thing that the people who use variations on the "If you aren't d

  • Enemies Foreign and Domestic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:48PM (#21464221)
    http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpt7.htm [enemiesfor...mestic.com]

    The STU [Special Training Unit] had its own single-engine Piper Lance, and had obtained a BigEye surveillance pod for it. The BigEye was a gyro-stabilized combination video camera for daytime use, and infra-red camera for night use. An operator in the plane could put the camera's cursor mark on a stationary or moving ground target and the camera would lock on to it even as the plane circled high above, out of sight and sound of its quarry.

    The extensive use of light planes was a tradition in the ATF going back decades; from the time when the "revenue agents" had flown them to spot bootleg liquor stills from the air. These pilot-qualified agents bragged that for them ATF stood for 'agents that fly'. The numerous flying special agents and ATF light planes often permitted them to reach the scenes of federal crimes involving illegal firearms or explosives before any other agencies. Any one-horse Podunk town with a dirt landing strip nearby could usually have ATF agents on the ground in a few hours at most. The ATF was independently air-mobile to a greater degree than most other agencies at the light plane end of the aviation spectrum.

    After a brief familiarization period with the BigEye Malvone gave his air team the addresses of a dozen senior government officials who were in a position to help the STU. They hit pay dirt on a Sunday morning in June when the Piper was flying lazy eights over Fairfax County Virginia, and they noticed activity at the estate of Deputy AG Paul Wilson. A Mercedes arrived with a young couple who turned out to be Wilson's daughter and son-in-law. Mrs. Wilson then left with them to attend church services.

    Soon after the driveway's automatic gate closed behind the Mercedes, Paul Wilson had appeared in a bathrobe on the back patio of the mansion by the swimming pool, accompanied by someone else. The stabilized zoom lens of the Big Eye then recorded in intimate detail the white-haired senior federal official and a black-haired girl playing in the Jacuzzi, with no detail left to the imagination for the next fifteen minutes. Upon further investigation the girl had turned out to be the 16 year old daughter of the Wilson's Costa Rican housekeeper, who had taken the day off.

    Malvone was smiling broadly at the memory. "As soon as I saw that tape I knew we'd own Wilson, we'd have him in our pocket. When the time comes he's going to go to bat for us, big time, and we'll get the Special Projects Division approved."

    "The FBI's going to fight it. They'll never let ATF have a new division with that much power."

    "That's where you're wrong Joe, the STU or SPD or what ever we end up calling it is going to be seen as a dirty outfit for dirty jobs, and the FBI won't want any part of it. If the SPD falls on its face, the stink won't rub off on them. They'll be glad to let the ATF have it, and let the ATF take the hit if things go wrong. By the time they figure out what's really going on, the Special Projects Division will be too big for them to stop."

  • Big Brother comes cheap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @01:56PM (#21464279) Journal
    Just don't let the price be everything that a free democratic republic should hold dear. It's not the monetary cost, it's the cost to your liberty that is at stake.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Erris ( 531066 )

      It's not the monetary cost, it's the cost to your liberty that is at stake.

      Yes, but it's always good to point out how expensive tyranny really is. The Huston police department spent a lot of money without public knowledge, and against the public interest. It needs to be shut down by pointing out that legitimate law enforcement resources are cheaper. This will leave the proponents arguing for the illegitimate uses. The advanced state of this project makes it look like the authorities don't need to arg

      • The Huston police department spent a lot of money without public knowledge,
        What makes you think this was without public knowledge? It's just a continuation of the 24/7/365 surveilance they used to do with helicopters. Try really hard not to make stuff up to fit your own agenda.

  • The price (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24, 2007 @02:10PM (#21464403)
    Several posters have commented that the price spread is between 30k and 1 M. A quick visit to the company's web site makes it fairly clear that these drones come with a wide range of electronics. The more electronics you stuff into them, the more they cost.

    They've been making and selling these for years and know darn well what they cost.

    The company's capabilities are impressive. One of their first products flew across the Atlantic, in 27 hours using 1.5 gallons of gas. Any model plane builder I know would have real trouble doing the same. ;-)

    Several other posters have complained about the cost. A typical remark concerns how many traffic tickets it takes to pay for the drone. At 30k, the drone costs less than a fully equipped patrol car.
  • The big question is whether Insitu have build in the correct safety features.

    For starters they must make sure they included a classified fourth directive regarding action against company executives. It is vitally important that the Insitu management can still drive there porches to work without worrying about niggling details like speeding tickets.

  • as long as the private firm isn't Blackwater, we're safe for the moment.
  • Currently police departments collect revinue by rader,laser,redlight camera or aircraft speedchecking. What they obviously want is a pilotless solution that will mindlessly, relentlessly, "tax" motorists from the air. And because its a drone aircraft its innerworkings cannot be challenged in court like they can be with a radar/laser/redlight camera/normal aircraft speedcheck. If I get a ticket for speeding by airborne speedcheck I can request the pilots flightlogs. But because the drones could potentially b

  • lies right off the top ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vic-traill ( 1038742 ) on Saturday November 24, 2007 @03:37PM (#21465041)

    From TFA:

    Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by Montalvo.
    When police department officials lie in an attempt to bully media out of covering simple testing of a technology, why (and how) do they expect that citizens will have *any* faith whatsoever with regard to their claimed motivations for a so-called service or, in the event of a rollout, of adherence to any privacy-related constraints/governance?

    It's not even off the ground yet (!) and the bullshitting has already started.

    The wind blew, the crap flew, and for days the vision was bad.

  • As a Houstonite, I'd like to point out that KPRC is a shill station in the eyes of many other Houstonites. They frequently blow up minor stories into giant exposés. This was more than likely a demo of some super high tect product that HPD probably won't buy for a while, and they just brought it in as a cool toy.
    • Another Houston denizen myself, I fully concur with the observation
      of KPRC ( Channel Two here ). They're about as lost as they can get
      when it comes to reporting. So annoying, in fact, I refuse to watch
      it anymore. Example would be a Tornado sighting.

      Normal news it's
      " Tornado spotted near I-10 and Highway 6 "

      KPRC's version of the same story is:
      " Terrible Twisters harass Travelers on Tuesday ! "

      It's like news for third grade. . . .

      Anyhoo

      The price range on the plane is likely due to the electronics package
    • You just don't realize the demographic they are targeting. Just take a look at their news line-up: Lauren Freeman [click2houston.com], Daniella Guzmán [click2houston.com], Rachel McNeill [click2houston.com], Mariza Reyes [click2houston.com], Dominique Sachse [click2houston.com], Courtney Zavala [click2houston.com], and my personal favorite Jennifer Reyna [click2houston.com]. I watch KHOU [khou.com] for my morning news but switch to channel 2 during commercials. I saw the report on the unmanned tests and given HPD's reputation of late I don't doubt for a minute they may have tried to cover up their tests. Heck HPD reported a guys death a suicide [khou.com] even
  • (1) What sort of pilot's licence do you need to operate one of these?

    (2) Given that the pilot is sitting safely on the ground, and doesn't have the same incentive that other airborne pilots have to not fly into me, what happens when one of these jokers kills me with one of their toys? They just file a report, and go home to their families, and fly again tomorrow?

    Are a few traffic tickets really worth that?

  • The aircraft has a wingspan of 10 feet and is said to cost from $30K to $1M. Pictures and video are available at the link.
    And my boat is somewhere between a pool inner tube and the Exxon Valdez. Seriously, that's the best cost estimate you can get?
  • The entire "speeding ticket" nonsense is just a "cover story".

    Fascism. What does it mean?

    a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

    Here are some key ingredients of fascism:

    • Leader passes laws giving himself even more powers
    • Controls the masses through Fear Mongering
    • Scapegoating. Certain class of people blamed for the problems the leader

Slashdot Top Deals

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller

Close