Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies 451
bprime writes "The BBC reports that officials in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, have bought three airship UAVs to keep tabs on the local populace. From the article: 'The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words, We watch over you for your security.' They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They then proceed to castrate all balances and increase their own power by playing the system and other elected officials so that laws perpetuate the new status quo.
This more or less describes present day Venezuela.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of course the opposition repayed in full by having their own attempted coup staged.
Sure, Venezuela's "democracy" is a sham. So is USA's, Canada's, France's, UK's etc. It is just a matter of how bold and unapologetic the participants of the sham are. Our Western equival
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe this to be a realistic view. Sugercoating the truth is usually not very helpful in the long term.
Of course there are a lot of other differences, I simply mentioned one of the major ones for brevity.
I cannot however understand how can you see the "glass" being half full in the US when you are faced with a rendition of "democracy" where the choices are permanently limited to pro-elite party A vs pro-elite party B. In order for any politician in the US to become "mainstream" i.e. to receive a blessing from the true rulers of your country: the upper crusts of your society, the moneymen who control all the finances of the electoral process and who also own the so-called "mainstream" media not to mention who also rule the mutual-admiration clubs which each of the party memebers must become a member of to become "viable".
You are reduced to a pathetic excercise of choosing between your rulers' representatives whose range of political views is so narrow that even the idea of universal healthcare, which all the other OECD countries have implemented out fear of the peons revolting, represents "extreme looney left".
Its the slaves voting on the color of their masters' whips.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)
All of the "democracies" as presently practiced are flawed to some degree. The primary problem is that complex issues of governance in any nation have to be ridiculously simplified and sloganized in order to be digestible to the voters. Then you have the mega-corporate media, billionaires and their lobbyists who provide their high-priority "input" into the debate and into the workings of the electoral process itself. I am not sure about Sweden's particulars but in the USA for example it now appears that presidential campaign costs will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. I could go on like this for a while.
Consitutional democracies look good on paper and even do work to a large degree in practice. But none of them can be at present described as "real" i.e. flawless representation of the will of an educated and well informed populace.
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Interesting)
The dominating income for Swedish political parties are state subsidies. The amount is proportional to the result in the previous election. Of cause you have to get into the parliament first, and to do that you have to get at least 4% of the votes.
And yes, no system of rule can be perfect, the world is too complicated and full of conflicting goals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is of course one of the pillars supporting my argument. To add further to this, even with an educated and informed populace no one can speak of a "real" democracy when the voter turnout is routinely around 20-30% or some such.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I propose you just do a simple change where people can choose to "vote against" instead of "vote for" - and it counts as a negative vote.
Then may the candidate with the least negative score win.
That'll be worth getting off your butt wouldn't it? Imagine the interview questions - so what do you think of your win with a score of -14423? It's better than the other cand
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Define "real democracy" then and explain why Venezuela isn't one. Then apply the same criteria to any other "democracy".
You see in order to make a statement such as the GPs, one has to create a set of measurements by which to assess the "realness" of that democracy. Which immediately creates a measuring stick with which to check all the other ones. And
when the free-est country in the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has been in a slow and steady gradual takeover by shadowy elements very powerful inside and outside of government, ever since an actual brave and thoughtful president-Ike- thought it necessary to warn the people during his retirement speech that it could and would happen if we weren't careful. Later on, the folks he was warning about managed to get rid of one elected person who was getting wise to them and was seeking to limit their power. Then they eliminated his brother, who looked likely to carry the torch on for his fallen sibling-yet nothing has happened about it. It's gotten worse since then, until now, we have only the faintest mirage of real freedom as it was originally designed to be, and that mirage is fading fast, with various "patriotic enabling acts" and "signing statements" that clearly show that only one agenda will go forward and the people and their wishes be damned, with big wars completely based on proven lies, wars which still will not end even when the lies are finally admitted to, and nothing happens to the proven liars.
Calling it a "dog and pony show" is being excessively *polite* and minimalistic near as I can see.
how "rights" work (Score:3, Insightful)
Basic data point you REALLY need to grok. chew on this until you "get it". This is very important and something I notice almost all foreigners and very few people inside the US for that matter really understand, because the elites don't want them to understand it, so they go way out of their way to brainwash peop
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be cults and small time dictators, but they usually have a detrimental effect on their people so that the technological achievements that would allow them to do such a massive surveillance initiative would be either out of their reach or not accepted by their people.
This seems to be OK with the people. That just surprises me since it doesn't really add that much to the safety and has the very
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't surprise me one bit. It's easy to scoff at people willing to give up civil liberties for the prospect of safety from our ivory towers at home. It's an entirely different thing to live it.
I have a friend who immigrated from Peru to the US. She is a staunchly anti-Bush person and considers him an overreaching warmongerer who wishes he was a dictator and is taking steps in that direction. She's a major civil liberties and human rights advocate. Yet, in Peru, she was a supporter of hardline dictator Alberto Fujimori. Knowing just these two facts, one may well say, "what gives?" and see this as contradictory. Yet, when you talk to her about life in Peru when she grew up, it's not hard to understand where she's coming from.
In her early life, she grew up in a town called Tayabamba, out in the Andes. The sort of place for which it was a real journey just to get to the next town. When Shining Path started sweeping across the countryside, this was a real threat -- not a mostly imaginary threat like American paranoia about terrorism. The group kept its membership up by sweeping through villages and rounding up all of the men who could carry a gun; people were terrified of them. Later, she moved to Lima, and there had to worry about the drug lords. They would call "strikes" to punish the country; what this basically meant was that if they saw you going to work, they'd shoot you on the spot.
Fujimori largely changed this. He launched a brutal crackdown on Shining Path. When members fled to the universities, which were constitutionally protected from raids, he ignored the laws and sent in troops anyways (greatly angering the students). When drug lords called "strikes", he essentially declared martial law and dispatched the military to the street. Armored vehicles would pick up anyone who was afraid to work and take them all the way there. Fujimori himself stood in the middle of the street downtown, daring them to shoot him, to demonstrate that they had no power over the city. The same sort of thing happened with corruption and monopolies; he largely disregarded the law in his quest to take down the Peruvian equivalent of our 19th century robber barons. Imagine where, if you wanted to buy a bar of soap, it was not only ridiculously priced, but you had to buy it as part of a "bundle" with other, less popular products that weren't selling. That's the sort of control that these people had over the market. While most of Peru lived in utter poverty, these people lived in obscene luxury.
Then there's just plain regular crime. My friend's brother once had the shoes stolen right off his feet. Literally. People would go around in pairs -- one would grab the victim from behind and lift him up while the other grabbed the legs and untied the shoes. They weren't emotionless thugs, like a lot of American crime seems; they were just desperate people who really needed the money they could get from selling his shoes, simply in order to eat. They even left him a pair of flip flops to wear home. When people would go to parties, they'd often wear cheap shoes and other clothing on the way there, then change into the nicer stuff when they neared or arrived at their destination so that they wouldn't appear rich and get mugged. This sort of crime was everywhere, part of the daily reality you had to consider for everything you did. When she moved to the US, she had to get used to not having to do all of her old anti-theft habits.
If people see a blimp as having the potential to even reduce these sort of crimes, I'm not surprised that they'd welcome them with open arms.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. I wonder how much Fujimori [wikipedia.org] payed Shining Path [wikipedia.org] to play chicken. This might sound snarky, but it wouldn't be unpresidented. I'm not questioning your friends reasoning for supporting him (I've never lived there, so I don't know), but when Peron [wikipedia.org] took power in Argentina many enjoyed prosperity while anyone who was suspected of opposition to any of his position
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I mentioned, it's easy to throw stones when you're not living in the thick of it. The more I hear about what her life was like, growing up, the more I can understand how a normally liberal-minded person could support harsh tactics in an "end justifies the means" situation. The "end" w
She believed in not being terrorized (Score:5, Insightful)
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a process [archives.gov] they could follow if they cared enough to do things the right way. That they don't says much about them, none of it good...and to think they accuse their opponents of "shredding the Constitution!" Pot, meet kettle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be happier making DC a no-residence zone, though it's too late for that, considering the number of people who live there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While it makes for a nice soundbite, it's a complete delusion.
So going over there and fucking with them somehow stops them from coming over here? Are you serious? On the flip side, you're saying if we totally leave them alone, they'll just come over here for the hell of it? Oh yes, the tired old line "they hate our freedoms", right? They are still human, basic human nature is "Don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you." So I don't buy your argument.
What's to stop th
Re:Damn! Your Friend is a Fool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
El presidente Antonio Bliar's big brother government bought Predator UAV for police use in the Tyneside area 2 years before Mr Chavez http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/605
LA Police deployed them 1 year before him: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5051142
And overall we are much closer to the stage of "Blue thunder, do you copy..." than Mr Chavez. You are giving him too much credit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that I haven't seen mention of that many crimes where the person didn't avoid some obvious camera or wittiness.
Unless the criminals are really really dumb, this thing is just another officer with a camera patrolling
ATHF reference (Score:3, Funny)
Master Shake: I can summon rainclouds to rain out the crime
Meatwad: Right, so then they go inside and rob banks and kill people.
Master Shake: Yeah, they could do that...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This was supposed to happen in Brazil? (Score:2)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.
That was naive. I'll assume you don't mean 2000-2007, as that's not much of a century. I'll also assume you're restricting yourself to the last 50 years, getting around Hitler. Of course then you still have Stalin, so that pushes you into the 60s. Then you get Pol Pot. Idi Amin. The ayatollah. Sadaam. Milosevic. Etc.
Even now, you've got Mugabe, Qadaffi, Chavez, Castro, Putin (that's no democracy, friends), Kim Jong Il, etc.
It's not necessarily irrational to want to be a tyrant. Possibly psychotic, but not irrational. The only question is whether you can pull it off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think we should put the Ayatollah in this catagory. He may have wanted totalitarian power, but compared to nearby Saudi Arabia Iran is a libertarian utopia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Word is they were to watch the border, but who really knows WHAT they're looking and listening for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they record the footage from each and every camera?
How long do they retain the footage?
How on earth do they catalog and index the footage?
I mean at some point there is just too much data to monitor isn't there?
-nB
One of their slogans... (Score:5, Funny)
Drop the second Y in the sign on the blimp (Score:3, Insightful)
At leat the blimps won't make as much noise as the police helicopters over much of LA in the night.
With Stealth(tm) UAVs, you *won't* see them! (Score:2)
Various people have been proposing blimps and other aerostats for cellular and data applications, and every year there's another announcement that they'll be launching Real Soon Now. But they don't. On the other hand, with Glorious Homeland Security Anti-Terro
How long 'til we see them in the U.S.? (Score:5, Insightful)
The LAPD is already trying this (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/l-a-drone-grou
Re:The LAPD is already trying this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All it takes is one well aimed shot by someone trained by the US Marine Corps.
The Mujahadeen didn't even bother to aim really. Let any real marksman take a crack at the problem and those things will be falling like rain.
Hmmm, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm, (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections audited by Centre for Electoral Consultation and Promotion of the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights and certified by the Carter Center, a Dutch parliamentary delegation, and the Organization of American States. And he pulled this off with his opponents running almost all of the country's media and the US funding the opposition.
You can fairly say a lot of critical things about Chavez and how he's running the country, but that he doesn't have major support from a majority of the country isn't one of them. That's one thing about democracy; it doesn't always swing in the way that the pushers of it want to, and when it doesn't, either your democratic prinicples or your willingness to accept leaders that oppose you has to give.
What about international observers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Their results are also surprisingly consistent with independtly performed polls and exit pollings -- unlike in the US of A! Remember 2004? That wasn't long ago.
Plus Venezuelian voting machines (that's bad) are Open Source (that's good). Unlike Diebold's.
Lets hope ... (Score:2)
Re:Lets hope ... (Score:5, Funny)
oh, la humanidad!
Airship pilots are expensive and rare. (Score:2)
WOO HOO! Gotta' go patent this idea!
Recent News Anywhere Else in the World (Score:2, Funny)
Floating target (Score:5, Funny)
The Venezuelan government buys 15 meter long airships for surveillance.
The city of Caracas has the "worlds worst figures for gun death".
So, taking a bit of a leap [jump with me if you wish]... The government of Venezuela is providing expensive 15 meter long floating targets for the people of Caracas to shoot at instead of shooting at each other...
You know, it just might be crazy enough to work...
lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Not new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to live in Oakland, CA where a police helicopter would fly over my neighborhood almost nightly. Most of the time, they would concentrate their spotlight search on a local school.
From a civil rights perspective, how is this any different from police car units patrolling your neighborhood?
What's this gotta do with America? (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.
Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should take that up with summary writer, bprime [faster-pc.net], who posed the question:
I get your point, but I was simply using America in the same reference as the summary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would those opposed to London cameras be labeled as "anti-American"? Again, you prove my point. Does everything have to lead back to America being bad?
And, you have to admit that those London street cameras helpe
What's spanish for "Hey, look, a target!"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, my Spanish is rusty.
In ...* UK, (Score:4, Informative)
*- Insert your favorite totalitarian government style
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We already have them, don't we? (Score:2, Interesting)
The summary asks, "how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?" Didn't I read about surveillance blimps already in the air over Washington DC, several years ago? Google says, YES [newsmax.com]!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think this sucks, but I'm getting tired of this kind of "we're the civilized world, the light, people that have different socioeconomic/politic views than us are obviously wrong, so they must have come to power by force, they're terrorists/dictators/communists/liberals (which are of course all the same), and therefore inherently evil" bullshit.
(sorry, I'm having a bad day)
Re: (Score:2)
Damned government! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just find it interesting that people are so eager to blow out of proportion any surveillance program in a free, progressive nation like the US, while downplaying much worse measures in Venezuela - a country which shows every sign of descending into a Cuba-like dictatorship. Ofcourse
Airships...Where have I heard that before? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's just hope that Koopa's [wikipedia.org] not involved this time...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can't wait for the reality TV show (Score:5, Funny)
A high speed chase featuring an airship tracking and a donkey powered wood cart through a shanty-town.
Not exactly black helicopters, indeed. (Score:3, Informative)
There are rather more worrisome things [amnesty.org] about Venezualan police than their use of UAVs.
Yeah but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but (Score:4, Funny)
not for long (Score:2)
Someone would hole the envelope with a rifle.
Of course there would be the obligatory references to "Big Brother" and such. I can hear the rhetoric now...
typo (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a misplaced 'y' at the beginning of the 2nd last word, but we shouldn't come down too hard on them for it. It's something a spell checker wouldn't catch.
The *BBC* reports about others' surveillance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain in particular hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to offering a critical view of others' domestic surveillance.
I was in London a few weeks ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Unworkable. (Score:2)
Of Course he says that, what would he say? I find the printing of slogans on them "We watch over you for your security" to be very newspeak.
While it might be true that the dirigibles will help to an extent, they can at least monitor places faster than a foot-mounted officer might get there, I find
Similar measures? (Score:2)
They started using them about 30 years ago...
Automated Law Enforcement? (Score:2)
I give them about 10 seconds (Score:2)
They're there already (Score:2)
Cool, a new sport (Score:2)
my guess is the blimps won't last long...
Why Shouldn't the People Steal? (Score:2)
How long? You already have it! (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is more:
Caracas is no HappyLand. It has a high crime rate, just like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (that by the way has its own surveillance blimp too). Surveillance is necessary, no, condition sine qua non to allow common people to live their lives without fear to be shot by a pair of Nike shoes (happens a lot in some Brazilian cities, just so you know). That's the situation is most Latin America.
Now, is not it hypocritical that 1) this is BBC reporting, coming straight from the country with the most ubiquitous surveillance system in the world 2) people are so desperate to find something to nail Hugo Chavez for that they need to resort to such FUD because they got nothing else. This is a move by the City of Caracas, not the country of Venezuela, just like the blimps on U.S. are a move from the NYPD, not the Federal Government.
Now stop talking about things you guys don't know about, and quit spreading fud. Come on, "keeping tab on the population".
Reminds me of Equilibirum (Score:2)
Ob (Score:2)
NOT in American Cities (Score:3, Interesting)
The FAA puts up one hell of a fight to fly a proven, safe UAV *FIVE MILES* from a municipal airport in the middle of nowhere Kansas to a restricted airspace controlled by the military and not the DoD. Sorry, there is no "eye in the sky" coming for us anytime soon.
Why does the US hate democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Noam Chomsky made a very interesting point,as he usually does: public trust in governments, as measured through opinion polls, is going down worldwide, and particularly accross america.
Guess where it's currently the highest? That's right, Venezuela.
CNN and other corporate US medias -- including Associated Press! -- call Chavez a dictator. It's the word they use in headline, litterally, no exageration on my part. That's hilariously, if not completely revolting, libellous. Chavez was democratically elected and re-elected, his numbers going UP from one election to the next. They've been validated by international organisations, including Pdt. Carter's organisation. Compare this Florida '00 for good measure.
Fascinating differences in point of view (Score:4, Insightful)
The Slashdot summary talks about keeping tabs on local populace.
The Slashdot comments talk about Chevez and Bush politics.
It seems like everyone has their preconceived views on Venezuela and puts their own spin on the story. Is Slashdot so set in its thinking?
3 airships is hardly likely to change the social fabric of Caracas. Most police forces have helicopters to chase criminals and I would think the UK has many more than 3 available, without anyone talking about overtones of surveillance society.
C'mon lets see moderators pick out the interesting comments about this story, not the precanned predecided views on Venezuela.
A point of view from a native (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to *live* in Caracas, and the prevailing view is not one of the government spying on us (we have lower standards regarding privacy than the US or European countries), but many rather view this as an utterly useless expense. Besides the simple fact that a manageable number of balloons cannot possibly watch every alley and corner:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are near a major airport, watch the patterns of the planes when they arrive for landing
Does your head get hot under all that tinfoil? Can you propose any even remotely plausible reason for the government conspiring with private airlines to secretly film the area of cities leading to runways at airports? I can't figure out if this post is most appalling for its lack of understanding of surveillance, geography, aviation, politics, or law. Maybe all at once. Where exactly are these invisible camera hiding given the close proximity with which anyone can observe aircraft at any given airport?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An airplane generates a pair of trailing vortices from the wing tips as an unavoidable consequence of producing lift. These are like a stretched out smoke ring - through the wings, back through the air on both sides, to where the wings were when it took off - although they don't stay in place forever.
The vortices expand and move slowly downward, until they are dissipated on the ground below the flight path - providing a slight overpressur
Naw - right after next big RICO siezure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never.
Naw. As soon as a major city has a big enough RICO siezure to buy 'em.
Helicopters cost a LOT to operate. They spend over an hour in the shop for every hour in the air. They MUST be maintained because there are a LOT of moving parts that are single points of failure - most involving a crash if they fail.
Airships can be very redundant and even if they crash they tend to do so gently (unless you paint them with thermite and fill them with hydrogen).
It's easy for police departments to buy big ticket items with RICO money. But their ongoing upkeep has to keep paying off, so it helps to keep that low.
Helicopters are good for point work - like assisting chases or patrolling highways during rush hour. But for ongoing surveillance they're expensive. And noisy, which tends to heisenberg ongoing crime out of their view.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, if remote-sensing platforms start getting shot down they'll quickly be upgraded with trace-the-projectile-back sensors to let the cops go after the shooters.
Fan of the Second Amendment that I am, I doubt that it would turn any city's copseye-in-the-sky airship program into a shooting gallery. (If it would, it already would have done so for cop helicopters or big brother "tra