Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones

Page 2 of 2  


I disagree. This is all personality disorder, nothing schiz about the dude.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another thought on this. A danger to other aircraft??? I don't know if there is any avoidance control. WW
"Major Drone" wrote in message
Stalin would be proud.
What a farce of a country you have become.
A nation of sheep.
==================================================== Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones
http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-of-all-americans-support-domestic-surveillance-drones /
Infowars.com Sept 28, 2012
Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments deploying surveillance drones domestically.
According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations.
Only 36 percent said that they “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” police use of drones, according to the survey.
The poll also found that only one third of Americans say they are significantly concerned about their privacy being eroded by the adoption of drones by police forces throughout the country.
Thrity-five percent of respondents said they were “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” when asked if they believed that police departments’ use of drones for surveillance would impact their privacy.
Almost exactly the same number, 36 percent, noted that they were “not too concerned” or “not concerned at all”, while twenty-four percent were neutral on the issue, saying they were only “somewhat concerned” about a potential loss of privacy.
FAA documents recently obtained and released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation have confirmed that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of the American people.
Furthermore, thousands of pages of FAA experimental drone flight records that were obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) detail just how complicated and risky it would be to operate thousands of unmanned arial vehicles safely without spending billions of dollars.
Following intense lobbying, almost exclusively by defense contractors, Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation in US skies by 2020.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So there will need to be 30,000 people to operate them? Where's the money coming from?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Regardless of what the article implied about FAA comments, rest assured that the drones will not be military/aircraft sized drones. They will have no need to fly hundreds of miles to reach their targets. Technology already has hummingbird sized drones easily controlled from the back of a van a few blocks away. And their flights will be below a couple of hundred feet altitude, well below altitudes controlled by the FAA or used by VFR aircraft.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. I was addressing several posts about the concern of size if crashing and about interference with general aviation rather than the legality issues.

Remember that the gatling gun was thought to be a weapon to end all wars. For every new technological 'toy' there has always been someone out to counteract it's effectiveness. And they'll always find a way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

tell someone they can't do something and I guarantee someone will find a way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can't blame them. They are afraid. It is such a lawless, violent and crime ridden place. I imagine the 36% will shoot them down anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Major Drone;2935415 Wrote: >

Major Drone:
I'm sorry. You said something but I couldn't understand what you were saying for all the noise in here. Could you please repeat the question?
Canada's where you wanna live. Canada has purple mountain magesties and amber waves of grain. Canadians also make better beer, better cigarettes, better rye whisky, better abductees and better hockey than Americans.
I'm not either. I'm what you'd would probably call a "grey" or a "space alien" or an "extraterrestrial" or, for crying out loud, a "Martian" (LOL), but I live in Canada. I think most people would agree that it's not exactly the same thing as being a "Canadian". I don't pay income tax and I expect the Canadian government would prefer it stayed that way rather than admit that the "Martians" living in Canada don't pay their fair share of taxes. (he he he)
Canada has the Aurora Borealix, or the Northern Lights, so Canadians don't get all twisted out of shape if they see a light in the sky, and that makes my job a little easier.
Anyhow, just me to you, don't believe what you read in the newspapers or online. Lots of us space aliens like to pull practical jokes. If you remember that Chicken McNugget that bore a striking resemblance to the Virgin Mary and sold for $12,000 on e-Bay, that was me.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/almost-half-of-all-americans-support-domestic-surveillance-d-715320-.htm DA wrote:
Major Drone wrote:

I hope police departments that do deploy them are very well insured! I would imagine that these things will drop far more frequently than actual piloted aircraft and typical homeowner's insurance does not cover the damage caused by falling aircraft. I had always assumed that to operate an aircraft you would have to carry a pretty hefty liability insurance and that, as well as the fact that damage causing events are extremely rare, has been figured into the price and the coverage of typical homeowners insurances over the years.
Now, with drones flying overhead supposedly 24/7 and no pilot onboard to correct a situation and perhaps prevent or limit the damage to life and property (perhaps even by sacrificing his own, as did happen before), the chance of aircraft damage may become significant enough for insurance companies to start charging extra for it. If that happens, it would be very interesting to watch the civil discourse that will unfold. Presumably, the deployment of drones can cost both the police departments as well as the consumers huge amounts of money, and a nice benefit to insurance companies.
I don't believe anything can stop eventual domestic deployments of drones (not necessarily for law enforcement) but it will take years to figure out all the laws and insurances and cost benefits, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Not as straightforward as to buy another cruiser and hire another officer. I don't even think it's going to be cheaper in any meaningful way. So, we'll see...
--

/\_/\
((@v@)) NIGHT
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 29, 10:44pm, DA

You Americans are thick as sh*t. They are remote controlled, that's all. The pilot is sat in the office miles away. Probably looking out for women sunning themselves in the back garden. So no savings, just more snooping.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.