FAA Bill Authorizes Surveillance Drones Over US 294
fyngyrz writes "Congress passed a bill this week that makes it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace. From the article: 'The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.'"
Maybe cost savings is the goal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe cost savings is the goal (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new overdrones.
cheers,
It could have been MUCH worse (Score:5, Informative)
I know everyone here in /. is going to be all up in arms over this as either police state violations of privacy or the "military-industrial complex" attacking citizens (thus the first post) But you all need to know that this was a MUCH less problematic bill than the regulations that the FAA was coming up with ON THEIR OWN.
The FAA was working on a new set of rules and regs that would have put UAV use and development COMPLETELY into the hands of the big military provider companies (Northrop Grumman, Boeing, etc.) Basically they started a new SUAS (Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, the formal name for what we call a UAV) rule process and completely left out ALL the small business and FPV hobbyist (not to mention regular citizen) concerns. The bill passed in Congress is actually a direct reaction to that and is designed to MINIMIZE the lock-in that the "Militray-Industrial complex" has on the sales and USE of SUASs in the United States.
It also has large set-asides for Hobbyist users (such as myself) and for regular citizens to create and use SUAS technology. Basically, it leaves WIDE OPEN the door for regular citizens to "watch the watchers". It's not perfect, and there are some restrictions in there that should be lifted or modified, but it's far and away better than what the unelected FAA members were about to do under the influence of "The Military-Industrial Complex".
This is why I'm conservative. Bureaucracies are by far and away the easiest things for Big Corp. or the MIC to corrupt. Bureaucrats are unelected, unaccountable, and largely uncontrollable. Thus large centralized governments INEVITABLY become corrupt, regardless of how many "controls" we put on them. (in the end, they just ignore the law anyway, so why have them?)
If concerned citizens hadn't started action on this item in time, the FAA's version of the rules would have gone into force and citizens and small businesses would have been completely locked out of SUAS and possibly even HOBBY airplane use. It would have been very bad indeed.
So while I'm not entirely satisfied with the new law, it is FAR better than the alternative we would have received otherwise. (Sadly, because of the existence of over-sized and corrupt bureaucracies like the FAA, the "Just leave us alone" option wasn't available.)
Re:It could have been MUCH worse (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, a last point I forgot to mention;
Prior to this there WERE NO restriction on SUAS use in US airspace. police and the military were ALREADY using SUAS to overfly and surveil citizens and crooks alike.
This bill just ensures that we citizens have the right to both have fun with home brew SUAS tech AND to "Watch the watchers" by flying our own SUAS units.
It also allows regular citizens the room to build and sell SUAS tech and build their own companies to compete against the "Big Boys" in the MIC. So it's generally good overall.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, actually, it does. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, every day we are witness to and victims of the depredations of unelected bureaucrats who trample our civil liberties and freedoms in clear violation of the Constitution and nothing whatsoever is done about it save said bureaucrats having a good chuckle about it over coffee.
Also, if the task of electing that many officials is a problem, then perhaps we could do with an order of magnitude LESS officials. Very few bureaucracies are actually critical to the function of good government. Most could be
Re: (Score:2)
Why spend so much manning these things to drop errant bombs on brown people when we can save the cash and fully automate them?
http://www.newsytype.com/11606-automated-killer-drones/ [newsytype.com]
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.
I can't imagine the headache this will cause for air traffic controllers. They'll have these little blips on their radar ... and if it's a small airport these things could make it less safe for local air traffic.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I got a chuckle out of your joke, but you did highlight a very serious problem. When I was in the Air Force in the early '70s, I had to tow some flightline equipment to a C-141 that was missing the co-pilot's windshield. The co-pilot himself was missing his head; a duck had gone through the windshield.
I wonder what will happen when the first drone takes out a commercial airliner?
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what will happen when the first drone takes out a commercial airliner?
Dem damn terrorist dun IT!
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
I hope these things are at least carrying transponders so they even make a blip on the radar at all.
They'd still show up on radar without a transponder and it would make no sense at all to not have a $200 transponder on $200,000 drone. Without a transponder ATC just wouldn't have any altitude data (if turning off your transponder was all it took to hide from radar, radar would be useless in a war situation where the enemy is trying to hide - obviously not the case - and there would be no need for stealth aircraft). Aircraft are required have to be carrying an altitude reporting transponder to enter most controlled airspace for safety reasons. Aircraft are required to contact ATC prior to entering, and/or stay in continuous contact with ATC also for safety reasons.
The FAA isn't stupid when it comes to safety (you might even say they're borderline paranoid). They won't give arbitrary exceptions to safety-related regulations.
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
They'd still show up on radar without a transponder and it would make no sense at all to not have a $200 transponder on $200,000 drone. Without a transponder ATC just wouldn't have any altitude data (if turning off your transponder was all it took to hide from radar, radar would be useless in a war situation where the enemy is trying to hide - obviously not the case - and there would be no need for stealth aircraft).
We aren't talking about Military radar installations, NORAD will already know where those drones are. We are talking about FAA style ATC, which DOES depend on transponders. If you have a big enough bird, you may get painted by ATC, but these drones are probably small enough and low enough that they will not give good returns. Even if there is a return, it may just look like a flock of birds, you never know. Without transponders, these drones will be dangerous. Even with transponders they may be dangerous for people flying in VFR and below ATC altitudes.
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
There are two kinds of "radar" for ATC: Primary radar sends out a signal and listens for reflections, often picking up flocks of birds and even clutter from ground objects like windmills while not being able to detect many smaller objects. Secondary radar relies on transponders: it sends out signals and puts a blip on the screen for every coded reply it gets from aircraft transponders. It is much more precise, which is why ATC pretty much exclusively uses secondary radar. Things without a transponder do NOT show up on their screen. If there is ever an emergency requirement to locate some flying object without a transponder, they usually have to contact the military who still use primary radar.
You are quite correct that aircraft are required to have transponders in most controlled airspace. I just hope this applies to unmanned drones as well, and the people operating those drones keep them out of controlled airspace. But what if they are doing surveillance on someone close to an airport? ("close" meaning 20 miles or so). How do they coordinate with ATC? I personally have no idea, but I hope they are in contact somehow.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)
"1200" is the transponder code for VFR aircraft (VFR = flying visually) that have not had a specific code assigned to them. Their transponder is working, and is actively transmitting "1200". Transponder codes are 4 digit octal codes between 0000 and 7777. Some of them have a special meaning (for example, 7700 means emergency, 1200 means VFR). So "all those 1200's on a scope" do have transponders.
Some civilian radars do indeed have primary radar as well, as a backup, but they only use it when they need it. It usually cannot measure altitude, is less precise, and has trouble with smaller composite aircraft (like, say... drones). And a great many civilian radar stations simply don't even have it, relying on the military in the rare cases where they do need it. Certainly in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
We had better hope these bad guys never get curtains. This is not for going after bad guys, those are hard to catch. This is for going after people doing things that should not even be illegal while in the privacy of their own homes.
Re: (Score:2)
As it stands now for remotely piloted non-autonomous craft there is in theory no conflict because they operate below 500 ft (legally, that is) while piloted craft are above 500 ft, again, legally. (IANAL but this is how it was explained to me, feel free to blast me apart.) Probably any drones are going to have to have all the same stuff planes have (at least, whatever is applicable) if they want to operate over 500 ft. They won't be permitted to operate in controlled airspaces without prior permission anywa
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't doing anything illegal, you really have nothing to hide. The world will be a safer place.
I can't imagine the headache this will cause for air traffic controllers. They'll have these little blips on their radar ... and if it's a small airport these things could make it less safe for local air traffic.
That's why this is part of the FAA modernization bill - they want to get rid of the commercial pilots, too. Ready to hop on a 747 piloted from the ground?
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Funny)
As long as AT&T isn't in charge of the wireless. That'd be one hell of a dropped call.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Though it would be piloted from the plane, with only occasional questions to/commands from the ground, same as with a human pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not planning on using radar anymore.
Part of this bill is the phasing out of radar as a traffic-control tool and its replacement with gps/satnav/computer coordination of aircraft positions and related information.
Basically, everything will be reporting its position/velocity/etc, and that in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right, the world would be a safer place, and I see no opportunity for abuse of these.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait until drones start being used to catch people in police chases. Then just travel streets looking for people speeding or whom it thinks ran lights. Then it will take pictures of people suspected of being too close to send fines to, even though it was due to another car cutting into a gap.
Then they will be used for private companies to monitor workers 24/7/365, as well as whom workers interact with. Why bother watching FB when a contractor can just hand you high resolution video of where all your
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Paraphrasing Scott Adams from "The Dilbert Future", written in the mid-early nineties:
"In the future we will have mechanisms to observe and convict 100% of all crime. We will also quickly learn that 100% of the population is guilty of some crime."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were manned aircraft would it be an issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Eeeee! Teh dronz!" Ahem...
Put the same equipment in a manned aircraft and it's a snoozer.
Some appropriate Beechcraft antenna pron. I like antennae (328X0 represent!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beechcraft_RC-12N_Huron_in_flight.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. This has to do with unmanned aircraft, which is entirely orthogonal to surveillance aircraft.
Personally, I'd like to see unmanned cargo flights; there's no real reason why every UPS/FedEx plane needs any human beings on it at all. (Of course, I supposed that would have ruined the movie Castaway).
captcha: "airmail". heh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If they were manned aircraft would it be an iss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
most drones are piloted by pilots..
but of course, the pilots are safely on the ground.
perhaps, the same could be done for the fedex/ups cargo planes ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the planes flown in 9/11 had been fully automated then the terrorists could not have commandeere
Re: (Score:3)
Would a human pilot have done any better with his sensors and position data jammed?
Yes, a human pilot with sensors and position data jammed would still know how to fly out of enemy territory. He could find north by simply looking where the sun is, for example. He might have trouble finding his base, but he sure as hell would be able to get out of enemy territory.
Look at the 2009 Air France crash, the pilots ignored the warnings by the computer and did just the opposite of what they warnings told them and crashed the plane.
They had to take control because the autopilot had disengaged. Without pilots, the plane might have continued flying until it ran out of fuel and then crashed. With different pilots, similar events have been correctly handled on n
Re:If they were manned aircraft would it be an iss (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being a pilot, I can tell you that there are things that happen regularly in flight that an unmanned, ground controlled craft could not deal with. A pilot uses all his/her senses when flying a plane, not just sight. Very often, if there is a problem, it is noticed as a slight vibration or sound. How would a ground controller pick that up?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This has to do with unmanned aircraft, which is entirely orthogonal to surveillance aircraft.
Personally, I'd like to see unmanned cargo flights; there's no real reason why every UPS/FedEx plane needs any human beings on it at all. (Of course, I supposed that would have ruined the movie Castaway).
captcha: "airmail". heh.
Also, the fall from the UPS delivery drone to my front yard would probably be more gentle than the current treatment...
Re:If they were manned aircraft would it be an iss (Score:4, Insightful)
> Put the same equipment in a manned aircraft and it's a snoozer.
Interesting point. I guess on some level, we're hoping that with a manned aircraft, an egregiously and obviously illegal order to target U.S. citizens might be disobeyed or even made public.
Ok as long... (Score:3, Funny)
...as privately owned anti-aircraft missiles are also legalized :-)
Not cost-effective (Score:5, Informative)
Why spy on your citizens when the overwhelmingly large majority never do anything seriously wrong?
Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.
Of course, it is cheaper than have helicopters with a 2-man crew... but "cheaper than ridiculously expensive" can still mean "too expensive".
Re: (Score:2)
Why do police have patrol cars that just drive around? For one, it's a deterrent to those few bad guys; for another, it makes for a quicker response to a specific incident. Replace a few patrol cars with patrol drones and you could potentially reduce costs, improve traffic flow (all those dicks who slam on the brakes when they see a car with a light bar), and have a much wider area of coverage. Of course you couldn't replace all patrol cars with drones, but it's probably feasible to replace some.
Re: (Score:3)
The government only goes after the bad guys, after all. I know I want to be watched at all times.
For one, it's a deterrent to those few bad guys
That doesn't seem to be working in any noticeable way. Or, at least, not any way that I think is measurable.
Re:Not cost-effective (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems this is not a cost-effective way to catch some bad guys.
The real goal of this is not to save money. The goal is to make money for the drone companies, and to score political points for the politician that can say they value national security.
Re: (Score:3)
Not about good guys and bad guys.
It's about feeding the Congressional-Military-Industrial complex, and about keeping consumers [1] in line.
[1] Consumers really is an interesting term for people. It views folks not as people, but as cogs in the machine. Though these days, we're as much product as we are consumes of product.
Spending (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending is fundamentally different when you're spending other people's money. When you spend your own money (for example you own a business), you view every dollar as an investment and make damn sure every dollar is accounted for. When your spending doesn't bring a return, you stop.
In the business of government, on the other hand, the people spending the money aren't spending their own money. They don't care where it comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through their hands, giving them a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. The rules are different, the outcome is different, and the people making the decisions are different. They are there for personal gain, same as the private business owner -- but their business strategy is entirely different. Their profits don't come from making an honest return on every dollar. Their profits aren't tied to success or failure, but rather how much political leverage they control with those dollars.
When the bureaucrat's spending fails to bring a return, this isn't a reason to stop. This is a justification for more spending.
You're not in the business of government, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why would obama sign that? (Score:2)
Wonder what else is buried in it.
Disturbing mental image (Score:3, Interesting)
- people, looking like ants, moving about their daily business
- drone operator clicks on a button, tags overlay on the image, connecting each "ant" with their phone number, sensed by nearby cell tower geolocation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just the first layer. Now you also have names, perhaps also personal and social connections because you have a Facebook or similar account. It could be interesting for sociological studies and literally knowing who your audience is. The police state would be thrilled, too.
Re: (Score:2)
-science geek aims his direct TV dish at the drone
-pushes switches and turns knobs on a mysterious black box
-suddenly, the drone loses signal and crashes
Article on BBC about this EU yesterday (Score:2, Informative)
There was an article on the bbc yesterday about small UAV's being used to verify crop types etc etc for the purpose of auditing EU farming subsidies. Certain subsidies are dependant upon farmers keeping wide headlands of wild flowers etc and there is also a subsidiy called "set aside" paid for taking land out of production. They were saying that in countries such as spain which has a large number of small fields and hilly terrain UAV's were far more practical than satelite imagery (shadows in valleys etc) a
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have subsidies in the first place, this would not be necessary. This is how good intentions and government spirals out of control.
Privacy advocates are targettng the wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
What is unreasonable is law enforcements desire to spy on everyone all the time. This is something that needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed directly. Not by attacking legislation that happens to enable it. We need to fight for legislation that explicitly sets limits on where the police are allowed to watch us.
Re:Privacy advocates are targettng the wrong thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You are definitely correct here. Anecdote time...
I saw a talk by a guy at NASA that was working on some bit of atmospheric research. He said that until recently, much if the in situ measurements were gathered by a human piloted modified U2 spyplane. Of course, there were big problems with this, namely cost per flight hour and limited flight hours due to fuel and the fact that the pilots would need to get out after 8 or so hours.
Their solution was to get a 'civilian'-grade GlobalHawk, which he said served
Resonably Expecting Less Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
The 8 foot high walls surrounding my backyard are the only things keeping me from being charged with exposing myself in public when I'm sunbathing in the nude to combat my pasty basement-programmer appearance.
I currently have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my own back yard, even though aeroplanes and satellites pass overhead because they're most likely not actively recording video of the ground.
Will children be prevented from accessing the drone footage? How can you be sure when such young hackers exist today?!
Will they be publishing the planned flight paths of the drones so I can know when my reasonable expectations of privacy have become unreasonable? If not... Why Not? I'm not sure I want children playing in the vicinity of flying machines build by the lowest-bidder of a government contract.
Additionally, I've been working up the plans for a very large parabolic solar reflector, capable of "flash-tanning" me in mere milliseconds, or even acting as a large out door oven. I won't focus the mirrors as high as airliners fly, for obvious reasons; However, I must leave the oven focused far above the ground to prevent children from accidentally burning themselves.
Won't someone Think of the Children?!
Without flight plans for these new low-flying craft, they can't possibly hold me accountable for such accidents involving the drones. I've done my duty by informing the government agencies of my physical address, and herein have publicly exposed my habits. It surely won't be my fault if a drone fails to avoid flying above my home, and gets caught in the path of my new death-ray...
Re: (Score:2)
I've been working up the plans for a very large parabolic solar reflector, capable of "flash-tanning" me in mere milliseconds
Something tells me your dermitologist is behind the new law.
Im all for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
members of congress, etc.. live in no fly zones.
Other uses (Score:2)
Personally, I see drones as being being more likely to be deployed as cargo aircraft, traffic monitoring, environmental monitoring, and ultimately, as passenger aircraft.
Sure, it's possible, even likely that the government will want to deploy domestic drones but frankly we as a populace leave so many electronic breadcrumbs from credit card usage to constant internet connects to carrying gps-cellphones I don't see a huge potential additional intel windfall from drone-format intelligence gathering (for the bu
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of fire fighting myself. Using drones for water drops and monitoring for forest fires. Also for search and rescue.
Oh and for extra cell hot spots for disaster and large events.
Why... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True. Texas police already have them.
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/8187-new-texas-police-drone-could-carry-weapons [readersupportednews.org]
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-civil-libertarians-have-eye-on-police-drones-2245644.php [chron.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/16/drone-gives-texas-law-enforcement-birds-eye-view-on-crime/ [foxnews.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS5vm149vGc [youtube.com]
What about personal drones? (Score:2)
This isn't a problem unless the law allows government and private companies more power than individuals. Someone must watch the watchers. Is anyone here familiar with the bill?
Spy Satellites? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can't wait for one to crash into a school (Score:2)
And then the government blames the crash on radio interference, and then demands that, in the interest of protecting children, we give up all our electronic equipment that might cause RF interference.
In the meantime, in pirate-land...
"Hey, wanna crash a drone? There's an app for that!"
Dick Cheney, while trying to shoot down a drone over his house, shoots some guy he knows in the face.
EMF pulse guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Please sell me an EMF pulse gun to use against any drone flying in my airspace.
BTW, what is a property owner's airspace? How high from the ground does "No Trespassing" apply? It has to be more than just a few inches from the ground. How much more?
in response to this (Score:2)
Legal Question (Score:2)
Open Season (Score:2)
If the government is going to hover drones over our backyards to watch our every move, then it is entirely appropriate and necessary for average Americans to park drones over the backyards of Congressman X and Giant Banker Fuck Y, and trace their every move and broadcast them live on the intertubes. But let's not stop there. MicroUAVs and cockroach/rat cams that worm inside their compounds and walls and listen to every shady deal and embarassing detail and relay that to the curious Public would be most ex
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh you poor fool, Ron Paul is one of "them" as well.
its getting worse... (Score:3)
have you seen the number of stories floating about talking about how primitive, out of touch, our Constitution is.
As in, its getting in their way more and more and they really don't like it. Worse, there are people in our country clamoring for stricter adherence to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And guys like him: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57373735-281/meet-richard-mack-republican-challenger-to-sopas-author [cnet.com]
We're giving our freedom away. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what gets me about my countrymen: they get all bent out of shape and spew shit like "small government", "freedom" and whatnot over TAXES - one of the lowest rates in the industrialized World, but when it comes to government surveillance and monitoring under the PATRIOT Act, no problemo. If you do nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about is the attitude among John Q. Public. Outside of the Slashdot crowd here, most people that I know at least, think there's nothing wrong about the Patriot Act. I keeps them "safe" after all from those Muslims that want to kill us over our fredom and make us live under Sharia law. You'll never see a Teabagger dress up as Franklin or Jefferson saying "Abolish our police state!" Nah uh. Not gonna happen.
Americans don't know what Freedom is, I'm afraid. Most of us think Freedom is no taxes.
A person is smart. People are stupid.
You're missing one thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am placing the blame on the people who have not held the government to the standard, the only standard that matters - only electing people who strictly adhere to the law above the government - the US Constitution, which would have prevented all of the nonsense, from IRS with all types of income taxes and Fed with money printing and fixing price of money (interest rates) and FDIC and minimum wage and SS and Medicare, to permanent wars and Patriot Act and NDAA and ACTA and DMCA and eventually SOPA and this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can pretend that your socialist ideology has nothing to do with totalitarianism and dictatorship, but you will only be able to lie to yourself, not to people who see it for what it is, and especially not to people who lived through it, and I have.'
Socialism is only possible with a strong dictatorial control gby government power and I am as uninterested in socialism as I am in fascism and to me their differences are so irrelevant because their similarities are so unbearable.
I say no to any form of govern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What can I tell you, I spent plenty of time in Germany within the last 2.5 years, I don't do too much business here, it's just a place I spend time in except for a number of other places, where I spend time and do business (and I moved almost all business out of North America), but I do what I do specifically to avoid the mix of socialism/fascism that is permeating USA, and I see Asia as a much freer market to work with and it is proving to be the case. I pay for the health care out of pocket and have a he
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, fercrissake... Ron Paul? Who do you think wants this "socialist" authoritarianism? THE GOD DAMNED CORPORATIONS! Aside from the right to smoke dope, the only freedoms Paul are after are the freedoms to screw workers, wreck the environment, and screw corporate "consumers".
Most of the repressive laws that have been written in my not short life have been passed by conservatives.
The Libertarian idea of "freedom" is insane. Take Illinois, they're talking about outlawing hand held cell phones while driving. Th
Re: (Score:3)
private companies would be free to do much worse under the banner of "individual liberty."
- There is nothing that a private company can do that can ever compare to what a dictatorial totalitarian government can do and has done and is doing.
Government has the structure, the power and the legitimacy to operate in a way that is similarly legitimate, after all, the MSM and the courts and the police and the army is under the control of government and no private company can control people in this way, and even if a private company becomes de-facto government, it then is no longer just a company - it'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and what are they going to do... When the average person starts a) hacking them for their own use b) shooting them down with whatever they can find or make?
- what do you mean "what are they going to do"? NDAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Schiff's bizarre and self-contradictory farrago of truths, half-truths, and outright lies
- you can say whatever you like, but none of it is factual.
For example I can say about your post: "this half brained comment indicates that the poster is mentally challenged and is also a Marxist sympathiser, which makes him dangerous for the well being of economy and by extension of the society, we should all pay attention to this posters and make sure to isolate him as soon as possible to prevent the inevitable repercussions of his ideology as it takes hold of the feeble minds of the public in various pu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how hard it would be to get a drone to land on a drone... you can already build them pretty cheaply. What's to stop someone from ramming a homemade UAV into one of these thnigs and causing it to go down?
Re: (Score:2)