Man, I wish I had more time to spend at the local hackerspace, and start learning a bit about aeronautics... I dream of creating a DIY drone that can go up and shoot down these stupid (Gestapo|Stasi|KGB|$WHATEVER) drones that our governments are sending up.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but yeah, if they got the drone you made, it would be pretty damn easy to find out that it was /you/ that made it.
1) You're manufacturing your own MEMS for gyros and accels [no].
2) Sparkfun started accepting cash at their non-existent retail location [no].
Your drone is a flying dataset full of things pointing at your credit card and your home address.
"Godwin's Law" is nothing but another stupid Internet meme. It's about as useful as Natalie Portman covered in hot grits in Soviet Russia while welcoming our new Overlords by emailing South Korean people using Plan Nine From Outer Space. With Frickin' lasers.
>I _really_ think the potential for UAV abuse is high.
I agree, however there's no legal standing to challenge it on. I'd rather spend my energy, instead of trying to fight something that is going to pass, to instead fight the abuses and make sure that the tool can't be misused too badly. Denying the tool outright is just silly, especially with our current understanding of privacy.
Fuck "Godwin's Law", as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't mean what 98% of people who invoke it think it means, and even if it did, who cares... it's just some off-hand observation by one random dude. But if it will make you feel better, I can edit my post and change it to reference the KGB or the Stasi or something, instead of the Gestapo.
Have any argument that isn't based in hyperbole and other logical fallacies?
Hyperbole is just a tool, like anything else. If you can't look beyond the technique and see the underlying point, that's as much a failing of your insight as my writing. Nobody else here seems to have gotten hung up on that aspect, FWIW.
>If you can't look beyond the technique and see the underlying point
It's a weak technique usually employed by those who have nothing of substance to say. Why resort to a cheap appeal to emotion right out the gate? What's the point? What is your point?
Why resort to a cheap appeal to emotion right out the gate?
First, I reject the premise of this question, therefore no real answer is possible. There's nothing "cheap" about emotion.
And aren't we getting way too caught up in debating style over substance here? I think my point was pretty clear, personally, and that you're just being intentionally argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. But since you asked, the point is that our government(s) are far too large, bureaucratic, corrupt and evil as it is, and that the continued militarization of local police is an unhealthy step towards more State power... a trend which I've observed growing over my lifetime (38 years so far) and which seems to be continuing unabated, if not gaining steam.
Now, go ahead and accuse me of a "slippery slope fallacy," if you want. But I believe that if the bad guys (and I do consider governments to be the bad guys) have these UAVs flying around spying on (and, more than likely, eventually attacking) us, then we should at least have the capability to respond in kind. Whether or not it's actually time to start doing that is an open question, but we should resist letting the balance of power shift further and further.
None of this, if course, argues against a simultaneous strategy of working to reduce State power by educating people, using the electoral process, etc. But I'd rather hedge my bets...
>And aren't we getting way too caught up in debating style over substance here? I think my point was pretty clear, personally,and that that you're just being intentionally argumentative for the sake of being argumentative
I disagree. You called them "gestapo drones" (an emotionally loaded and pretty much useless term) without elaborating further. That said, nope. I try not to argue on the internet just for the lulz. Huge waste of time. I'd rather you just tell me what you're getting at in plain English, thanks.
Uh, super. Are you missing the fact that if these are flying over your city they are paid for by your taxes and the police will just buy another one, probably a bigger and more expensive one, justifying it by saying that "criminals are shooting them down because they're scared of them" or something?
Also, if you think that a trip to a hackerspace qualifies you to build a UAV, I really don't want your armed UAV flying over my head. Maybe start with a $1M+ budget and a team of qualified aerospace, mechanical, and electrical engineers. Ones currently with well-paying, legal jobs willing to leave those to work on your angsty teenage temper tantrum that would ultimately be counterproductive anyway. I have experience with model airplanes and robotics and I'm against this as much as the next guy but if you asked me to join your team I would report you to the FBI before a model airplane with a shotgun duct taped to it crashes into my roof.
If you really want to take criminal action to stop this, you should... no, I'm not going to tell you, lest you're dumb enough to try.
Are you missing the fact that if these are flying over your city they are paid for by your taxes
Oh, no... in fact, that's a large portion of the problem.
Also, if you think that a trip to a hackerspace qualifies you to build a UAV
No, I expect it would take a ton of studying, research, experimentation, consulting with people with experience in that field, etc. But, ya know, on an Internet message board, it's sometimes necessary to omit some detail in the name of expediency. Kinda like how in a movie you never see the main characters stopping to go to the bathroom, or eat a meal (unless it's part of the plot), search for their car keys or wallet, or a myriad of other mundane details.
work on your angsty teenage temper tantrum
LOL, now that's funny.
If you really want to take criminal action to stop this, you should... no, I'm not going to tell you, lest you're dumb enough to try.
Thanks for the unjustified personal attack, that's so in-keeping with the spirit of HN...
So it's okay for you have a drone, even a armed one, but it's not okay for the police to have one? This would be the equivalent to demanding the police not use cars and instead case suspects on foot. As a result of the high tech age we live in rapid changes in what is possible are happing one of them is unmanned arial vehicles, in another decade they will be cheap enough that you could get your own, and a decade after that high schoolers will use them for their school science fair.
So it's okay for you have a drone, even a armed one, but it's not okay for the police to have one? This would be the equivalent to demanding the police not use cars and instead case suspects on foot. As a result of the high tech age we live in rapid changes in what is possible are happing one of them is unmanned arial vehicles, in another decade they will be cheap enough that you could get your own, and a decade after that high schoolers will use them for their school science fair.
Ok I get the potential privacy implications, but two things.
1) Aerial surveillance is not new. Ever seen the signs on the highway that say "speed limit enforced by aircraft?" Local jurisdictions have been flying small planes and helicopters for law enforcement for decades.
2) What is electronic about this? I mean, I get that the drones use electronics to gather and store data, but this feels like mission creep at the EFF to me. There are plenty of battles to fight online.
I agree. Ohio has a whole fleet of police planes that they've been using to catch speeders on the highway for a long time.
Also if you look at the FAA drone authorization list on the EFF's website most of the organizations getting authorization are either US DOD or Universities (Probably being used for research not surveillance). Not many police organizations.
They are much much cheaper to operate compared to an actual plane with a pilot. That allows for invisible 24/7 surveillance of large areas. And that's where we get into police state territory.
Its the same reason why you now need a judge to sign off on a GPS tracker. People made the same argument that police are already free to tail people, but don't realize the time and cost associated with doing so.
1) yeah, but what is new is that such drones could fly at a much lower altitute, and be able to take pictures in great detail, with great stability, enabling face recognition, car tracking and so on. There's basically no frontier to the possibilities offered. A drone could follow someone between 2 houses, not a plane.
2) As long as you are talking about unmanned vehicles, everything's electronic. The way it captures information, the way it shares/stores information, how this is done without your consent, etc... in germany and some other countries people complained about the privacy abuse of Google cars, but this goes way beyond: it will be used by goverment or local state power, and there will close to nothing you can do to alter their practices.
It's actually very relevant to the EFF mission. There's no "online" and "offline" once the two worlds are constantly bridged together.
I don't think we know the implications of drone aircraft used by local police forces. Not knowing should not take it off the table, it should rather require oversight to make sure the populace agrees with their mission, if the mission were to change.
On the one hand, it could save municipalities money by affording a more effective police force. As mentioned earlier, this is an extension of what agencies do now --except that they'd be unpersonned. On the other hand, what are the implications if they were to arm these drones with some kind of lethal force?
I think if they were limited to reconnaissance, search (maybe not rescue), aiding in enforcement of law, I don't see how drones become automatically off-limits.
I'm probably missing something, but those are my thoughts now.
Isn't that the same debate as CCTVs surveillance in London ? They were placing surveillance cameras everywhere to say it would be more effective to fight crime, but actually it does not do anything to prevent it. At most, they can get some pictures of what ever happened, but that does not prevent it from happening in the first place.
Having drones is basically a very similar idea, while the camera is moving.
I don't think we need more effective police force. We DO need more effective control over our government and policies that extend powers over our lives.
I think there's some merit to being able to solve crimes more effectively after the fact --even if they don't prevent them as much as desired. That police can upload an image of a suspect and see if they have been captured on camera somewhere is of value. They do that in Japan; it aids the police in tracking a known criminal, so long as they're not careful (which is very difficult) -ie take taxis avoid walking in most urban areas, etc.
More effectiveness means fewer people are needed to police a given population, that reduces the cost --which is typically what people are most sensitive about. You may be more sensitive about other aspects, but you might not align with most people in that regard.
There is also Shotspotter technology, it helps in driving police to a firearm discharge, rather than prevent the discharge. Never the less, it helps police manage crime better.
I am glad the EFF is doing this sort of thing. It seems like a good reactionary stance that should help the society at large. Will the data be available anywhere publicly? It doesn't seem like the EFF mention that I am sending them the data under a license. Is that something I have missed, or have they overlooked this? It seems like an important part of the equation.
28 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 48.2 ms ] thread1) intentionally destroying a police car
or worse
2) killing a police officer (see what happens if you shoot a police dog)
1) You're manufacturing your own MEMS for gyros and accels [no].
2) Sparkfun started accepting cash at their non-existent retail location [no].
Your drone is a flying dataset full of things pointing at your credit card and your home address.
So good luck with that.
Welp. This thread was godwinned rather quickly. Have any argument that isn't based in hyperbole and other logical fallacies?
It's hard. I _really_ think the potential for UAV abuse is high.
But it's a Law of the Internet, I guess. You win this round.
I agree, however there's no legal standing to challenge it on. I'd rather spend my energy, instead of trying to fight something that is going to pass, to instead fight the abuses and make sure that the tool can't be misused too badly. Denying the tool outright is just silly, especially with our current understanding of privacy.
Fuck "Godwin's Law", as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't mean what 98% of people who invoke it think it means, and even if it did, who cares... it's just some off-hand observation by one random dude. But if it will make you feel better, I can edit my post and change it to reference the KGB or the Stasi or something, instead of the Gestapo.
Have any argument that isn't based in hyperbole and other logical fallacies?
Nope; I'm not here to argue.
It's a weak technique usually employed by those who have nothing of substance to say. Why resort to a cheap appeal to emotion right out the gate? What's the point? What is your point?
First, I reject the premise of this question, therefore no real answer is possible. There's nothing "cheap" about emotion.
And aren't we getting way too caught up in debating style over substance here? I think my point was pretty clear, personally, and that you're just being intentionally argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. But since you asked, the point is that our government(s) are far too large, bureaucratic, corrupt and evil as it is, and that the continued militarization of local police is an unhealthy step towards more State power... a trend which I've observed growing over my lifetime (38 years so far) and which seems to be continuing unabated, if not gaining steam.
Now, go ahead and accuse me of a "slippery slope fallacy," if you want. But I believe that if the bad guys (and I do consider governments to be the bad guys) have these UAVs flying around spying on (and, more than likely, eventually attacking) us, then we should at least have the capability to respond in kind. Whether or not it's actually time to start doing that is an open question, but we should resist letting the balance of power shift further and further.
None of this, if course, argues against a simultaneous strategy of working to reduce State power by educating people, using the electoral process, etc. But I'd rather hedge my bets...
I disagree. You called them "gestapo drones" (an emotionally loaded and pretty much useless term) without elaborating further. That said, nope. I try not to argue on the internet just for the lulz. Huge waste of time. I'd rather you just tell me what you're getting at in plain English, thanks.
Well, then you should have said so before I posted! :-)
Also, if you think that a trip to a hackerspace qualifies you to build a UAV, I really don't want your armed UAV flying over my head. Maybe start with a $1M+ budget and a team of qualified aerospace, mechanical, and electrical engineers. Ones currently with well-paying, legal jobs willing to leave those to work on your angsty teenage temper tantrum that would ultimately be counterproductive anyway. I have experience with model airplanes and robotics and I'm against this as much as the next guy but if you asked me to join your team I would report you to the FBI before a model airplane with a shotgun duct taped to it crashes into my roof.
If you really want to take criminal action to stop this, you should... no, I'm not going to tell you, lest you're dumb enough to try.
Oh, no... in fact, that's a large portion of the problem.
Also, if you think that a trip to a hackerspace qualifies you to build a UAV
No, I expect it would take a ton of studying, research, experimentation, consulting with people with experience in that field, etc. But, ya know, on an Internet message board, it's sometimes necessary to omit some detail in the name of expediency. Kinda like how in a movie you never see the main characters stopping to go to the bathroom, or eat a meal (unless it's part of the plot), search for their car keys or wallet, or a myriad of other mundane details.
work on your angsty teenage temper tantrum
LOL, now that's funny.
If you really want to take criminal action to stop this, you should... no, I'm not going to tell you, lest you're dumb enough to try.
Thanks for the unjustified personal attack, that's so in-keeping with the spirit of HN...
The police do have them.
1) Aerial surveillance is not new. Ever seen the signs on the highway that say "speed limit enforced by aircraft?" Local jurisdictions have been flying small planes and helicopters for law enforcement for decades.
2) What is electronic about this? I mean, I get that the drones use electronics to gather and store data, but this feels like mission creep at the EFF to me. There are plenty of battles to fight online.
Also if you look at the FAA drone authorization list on the EFF's website most of the organizations getting authorization are either US DOD or Universities (Probably being used for research not surveillance). Not many police organizations.
Its the same reason why you now need a judge to sign off on a GPS tracker. People made the same argument that police are already free to tail people, but don't realize the time and cost associated with doing so.
2) As long as you are talking about unmanned vehicles, everything's electronic. The way it captures information, the way it shares/stores information, how this is done without your consent, etc... in germany and some other countries people complained about the privacy abuse of Google cars, but this goes way beyond: it will be used by goverment or local state power, and there will close to nothing you can do to alter their practices.
It's actually very relevant to the EFF mission. There's no "online" and "offline" once the two worlds are constantly bridged together.
On the one hand, it could save municipalities money by affording a more effective police force. As mentioned earlier, this is an extension of what agencies do now --except that they'd be unpersonned. On the other hand, what are the implications if they were to arm these drones with some kind of lethal force?
I think if they were limited to reconnaissance, search (maybe not rescue), aiding in enforcement of law, I don't see how drones become automatically off-limits.
I'm probably missing something, but those are my thoughts now.
Having drones is basically a very similar idea, while the camera is moving.
I don't think we need more effective police force. We DO need more effective control over our government and policies that extend powers over our lives.
More effectiveness means fewer people are needed to police a given population, that reduces the cost --which is typically what people are most sensitive about. You may be more sensitive about other aspects, but you might not align with most people in that regard.
There is also Shotspotter technology, it helps in driving police to a firearm discharge, rather than prevent the discharge. Never the less, it helps police manage crime better.