Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy Robotics Technology News

Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami 274

Posted by Zonk from the now-we-just-need-a-good-rigger dept.
Catoonsis writes "Reuters is reporting that 'Miami police could soon be the first in the United States to use cutting-edge, spy-in-the-sky technology to beef up their fight against crime.' The police force is planning to make use of a small aerial drone, capable of hovering and quick maneuvers, to monitor the Miami-Dade area and alert officers of potential problems. The device, manufactured by Honeywell, is awaiting FAA approval before it can be put into use. This decision is just the latest chapter in the developing relationship between law enforcement and robotic assistants. 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. This month, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Juan Munoz Torres said the agency would also begin test flights of a modified version of its large Predator B drones, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the Gulf of Mexico.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami More

Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami

Comments Filter:

  • Car chases are going to get even better! (Score:5, Funny)

    by binaryspiral ( 784263 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:27PM (#22871212)
    I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires [wikipedia.org]!

    Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close.
    • It could be much worse than hellfire missiles. Just hope the drone doesn't use "helicopter batteries"!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jb68321 ( 1123905 )

      I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires!

      Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close.

      RTFA. The thing is only 18.5 lb when fully loaded with fuel, and that wiki you link to says Hellfires are at least 99lb, with >18lb warheads. The weight alone doesn't make sense... remember this thing flies/hovers.

      More like "Landing airliner collides with drone. 400 dead. Including 10 on the ground. The drone was mistakenly armed with nuclear weapons and exploded when the drone crashed, killing 50,000 more".

      I think dropping tear gas capsules would be a lot more likely than sending off missiles/nuclear arms anyways.

      And this thing is "designed to fly between ground level and 500 ft," which tells me that it'll be rather easy to keep away from light aircraft. Sure, it can go up to 10,500 ft in optim

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
        "I hate the idea of this thing buzzing around, and it sure is ugly, but I think it's silly to think they'll throw it in front of light aircraft, which is the only way you'd really hit it... assuming only the police are using the drone. If some media/photography groups get a hold of this, sure it'll become a huge issue as it'll be everywhere and anywhere without warning. More likely it'll be infringing on your personal space rather than aircraft (ie back yard, parks, shopping areas). But given the crowd down

        • Frog gigging (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) *
          What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin' [wikipedia.org]: first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy.
          • "What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin' [wikipedia.org]: first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy."

            Even better, especially if they start flying these things over us down south.

            First thing you say when you see one fly over you....."PULL"!!

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Some_Llama ( 763766 )
            I would think in the absence of signal it would be designed to keep current altitude and then circle in widening patterns until it got a new signal, i mean they obviously have to plan for sporadic interference anyway, this would seem the most logical design?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by c6gunner ( 950153 )

          Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?

          A special law? Do you have any idea how many existing laws you'd break by shooting down one of these over a populated area? Last I checked the unsafe discharge of a firearm, destruction of government property, and public endangerment are all illegal in most cities/states.

          Not to mention that the Department of Homeland Security would probably drop by, looking to "get to kn

  • and that way i can tell dear old mom the next shadow run game is "job research"

  • The reason the Predator flies only over desert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DustyShadow ( 691635 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:28PM (#22871244) Homepage
    There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times [airforcetimes.com] and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.

      1. The article states that this is "pending FAA approval"
      2. This is only like the Predator in that it is a drone. Since the thing is capable of hovering, it's not the same design at all. See picture in TFA.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Psmylie ( 169236 ) *
      That's one of the things I was concerned about... What if the thing crashes? Sorry, but the worse case scenario that I can think of, this thing crashing into a busload of kids, is not worth a slight bump in police efficiency.

      And that's not even considering the privacy concerns. Sure, I know that public is public and cameras are everywhere, but I think having something capable of following you around with a camera is a much bigger deal than static cameras.

      Ooh, that brings up a question... how long until th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Psmylie ( 169236 ) *
        I woulda read the article first, but I was having trouble pulling it up... it turns out it's only 14 pounds... so I guess a busload of kids wouldn't really be in danger, but individuals still would be. Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mea37 ( 1201159 )
          "Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you."

          So can a car, but I doubt we'll be outlawing those.

          I'm not really convinced either way on the safety of this plan. The FAA will decide whether it's safe enough to approve, and while I don't know that I can trust their judgement 100%, it's far from the first time my safety has been impacted by their decisions.

          So, pending more information, I'm not alarmed by the "crashing drones" issue.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
            Cars very rarely, if ever, fall out of the sky because their datalink went dead, or they got a command sent to the wrong vehicle by accident. Several different species of UAV have crashed specifically for this reason, some by completely separate command vehicles and others by the same command vehicle doing training and missions simultaneously.

            I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty of other reasons to keep this thing from flying.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mea37 ( 1201159 )
              Unmanned vehicles very rarely, if ever, crash into pedestrians because the driver is drunk, putting on makeup, or talking on a cell phone. Several different species of car have crashed specifically for this reason.

              The question isn't whether they pose new or different risks, but rather whether they pose a higher risk than the background noise. Posts that enumerate nightmare scenarios are nothing but useless scaremongering.

              "I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
                Whatever you say... The risk is real, but the likelihood is small and therefore not worth considering in the larger scheme of things.

                I'm not trying to bolster my position with anything, FUD or otherwise. I was mostly making fun of someone saying that a car could kill you if dropped from the sky. No one was denying that, but to compare the two is ludicrous.

                My position, as I've posted elsewhere, I believe, is that these are bad for reasons other than safety. The constant push for more and more surveillance

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 )
      The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.

      I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

      • I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

        I, for one, welcome our new ... oh to hell with it. This is too close for humor.

      • Don't tase me, drone!

        Not quite as catchy :(
    • Perhaps they can fit them with little Parachutes in case of power failure.

    • Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert (Score:4, Informative)

      by clampolo ( 1159617 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @01:14PM (#22871852)

      It doesn't sound as bad as I thought from the title of the article. Seems they are just going to use it for tactical situations. So if there is a hostage situation, they can send up one of these things over the area to get a better view of the situation. Seems pretty useful: if you are sending in a SWAT team, you could quickly notify them if someone with a gun jumped out a window and is hiding in some bushes.

      The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
        "The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on."

        What do you mean "if"?

        The list of laws and powers that have NOT been escalated and used far beyond their original intent is a very short one indeed.

        If they get these, I can assure you they will expand the program to catch all the terrorists, and child abductors. I mean

    • Get rich quick in Miami:

      1. Have friend hide in bushes with a BB gun
      2. Have friend shoot drone
      3. You run out underneath drone
      4. ???? (Survive impact to head most likley)
      5. Sue the city
      6. Profit!!!

  • Why the Canadian border? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GroeFaZ ( 850443 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:29PM (#22871264)
    To keep US citizens in?

    • Re:Why the Canadian border? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:45PM (#22871458) Homepage Journal
      THIS is what makes it so obvious that all this "Homeland Security" is primarily *against U.S. Citizens*, not against external threats:

      Canada is our FRIEND. Canada has not offered us violence, or a flood of illegal aliens, or a torrent of criminals, or anything worse than the occasional pot smuggler or draft-dodger haven. Canada has been our defense partner for decades, and is consistently our best friend in the world. That Canada is sometimes called "the 51st State" is not entirely a joke.

      There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

      The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada, tells me that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are regarded as Enemies of the State, and that any border surveillance is designed to keep us in, as much as to keep threats out.

      Doesn't *anyone* remember the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall??

       

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LoudMusic ( 199347 ) *

        There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

        It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north, and if you can get into Canada undetected it would then be pretty easy to get into the United States through Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota.

        The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

        Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm throug

        • Re:Why the Canadian border? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MicktheMech ( 697533 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @01:09PM (#22871786) Homepage

          It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north

          A.k.a. the Arctic. A bit more difficult than the Rio Grande, not to mention the only threat around the Pole is Russia. That's why we have NORAD. Also, any argument along this line applies equally to Alaska. Furthermore, there are two major vectors for illegal immigrants into Canada. Smugglers from China (which also applies to the U.S. West coast) and believe it or not, illegals entering through the U.S.

          The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

          Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

          This is complete rubish. The only practical effect of the heightened security has been to cost money and jobs on both sides of the border. The only explanation for why it's done is because politicians can score easy points on their "security" record to tout in the next election. Unfortunately it seems to work because most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border.

          Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
            "Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S."

            Let me guess, this started with some new Canadian gun control laws that I don't know about?

            =======

            Back to the rest of your post... Aside from all the reasons you cite as to why this is rubbish, it can be directly harmful to Americans:

            There is at least one place where to get from Point A, Maine, to Point B, Maine, the road passes briefly through Canadian territory (probably because the area i

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by CSMatt ( 1175471 )
            I thought NORAD only still existed to track Santa.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
          "The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada."

          So ... are you saying Canadians are slackers who'll let just anyone pass through their country?

          And if DHS is trying to protect the U.S. from threats coming across the northern border -- why do *Americans* need passports to visit Canada??

          It makes no sense from a security standpoint; it just makes it look like they're Doing Something. Anyone bent o
        • Yeah, but you shouldn't alienate your allies just to protect yourself from the threat of enemies who won't respect your allies' borders. I mean, if France had extended the Maginot line to cover its border with Belgium, the trade and political disaster would've been enormous and devastating.
    • If there was such a proposal, it would be in the guise of catching drug, alcohol, and tobacco smugglers. Theres a seriously huge industry in smuggling alcohol and tobacco into canada due to our massive taxes on the products (Smokers pay through the nose up here, based on the justification that since the government pays out the health claims, they need a return from the higher risk groups.

      This makes for a huge amount of smokes and booze coming across the border to canada from the united states.

      Then theres th
      • the downside is if its effective the smugglers methodology will simply change.

        If effective, then the changed methodology will cost the smugglers more - hence economics will reduce the supply.
        • Really?

          That's what the US thought when it created the lumber tarrifs concerning canadian lumber. All that happened is our lumber industry became more efficient and cost effective than ever, while creating sustainable lumber forests.

          Its possible either way though, i'll grant you that.
        • Huh.. I suppose that's why it's been harder and harder to get drugs. Wait, it hasn't been, but drug related violence is up? Hmm.

          The only cost will be innocent people being killed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wiggles ( 30088 )
      Because Canada has become one of the top exporters of Marijuana to the United States.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JrOldPhart ( 1063610 )
        Legalize it. Tax it.

        Legal items are much more easily controlled. Just like the end of prohibition ended most of the black market for liquor.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by CSMatt ( 1175471 )
          Tell that to the "think of the children" groups and everyone else who thinks the government has the right to protect us from ourselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hurfy ( 735314 )
      Presumably...after all it DID say North Dakota :)
    • No, to keep them out ;) potato potahtoh.

  • Shouldn't they have at least *attempted* to disguise it? I'm guessing that picture is going to show up on the local 6pm news. Anyone with a gun or large blunt object could put that thing out of commission somewhat easily... not like it'd be hard to pick it out against the skyline on a typical day.

    • They'll hang a cardboard cutout from the bottom of it that looks like a seagull. Then nobody will be able to prove that the fuzzy thing they have on film is a UAV.

      "Look! I taped it this time, there it is!"

      "That's not a UAV, it's obviously a seagull."

      "Well what's that thing on top?"

      "It's a weather balloon"

      "Tied to the seagull's back?"

      "Yes, it's obviously part of a wildlife experiment in seagull migration"

      "That's ridiculous!"

      "And you mean to tell me that the government's spying on you for no reason? Man, you'
    • Looking at the pictures, it doesn't appear to be a sustained flight drone. I think what they have in mind here is more like hopping form rooftop to rooftop rather than actually flying behind the suspect. The article says "capable" of hovering; would you ride in an airplane that was described by the media as "cabable" of flying?
  • I wouldn't want to compete with airspace and or traffic control when these things are up in the air. Its difficult enough to fly vfr and see full size airplanes - try dodging something that isn't meant to be seen or heard? no thanks.
    • try dodging a police helicopter. Same thing only closer to the ground.

      by the way if your flying VFR 500' above Miami city streets your going to go to jail anyways. Hell even at 1000' I would be worried. How tall is the tallest building in miami?
  • So if I'm ever flying over Miami in a light plane I can look forward to trying to dodge robotic aircraft that could change direction with no advance warning and tear right through my aircraft. There's a reason you won't see UAV's getting FAA approval anytime soon, they are a serious hazard to air navigation. Visual navigation of aircraft requires just that, vision. Until they have a "see and avoid" system that's foolproof they aren't fit to share airspace where human lives are at stake.
    • So if I'm ever flying over Miami in a light plane I can look forward to trying to dodge robotic aircraft ... aren't fit to share airspace where human lives are at stake.

      What are you doing flying over populated areas in a > 1000 pound aircraft at the low altitudes this < 20 lb object is maneuvering at?

      • What are you doing flying over populated areas in a > 1000 pound aircraft at the low altitudes this

        Smuggling drugs.

        Next question, please. (Didn't you ever watch Miami Vice?)

      • ...I can say that as long as these things stay at or below about 300' AGL and completely stay 100% out of the airspace (at *any* height AGL) within a 4 nautical mile radius of any airport's traffic pattern, then they will not pose any substantial threat to most manned aircraft. The only exception being medivac helicopters, which can be flying low over any part of a populated area. A rule would need to be enforced that whenever a medivac chopper is in the area, the drones must be landed immediately, regardle

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)

      by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:45PM (#22871470)
      Top 5 reasons to use drones over Miami:

      5) Nude sunbathing: encouraged by Miami PD!

      4) It's not noisy enough, we need small jets hovering outside the bedroom window at 3AM chasing pot smokers!

      3) Proof of concept that Windows Vista, Mobile Edition is totally safe in unmanned drones, except when the DRM turns on!

      2) Easier to catch 93-year men soliciting hookers!

      and the #1 reason to use robotic drones:

      1) Seagulls, eat leaden death!

  • Horatio Caine will be pleased (Score:3, Funny)

    by themushroom ( 197365 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:35PM (#22871336) Homepage
    Because he's only one omnipotent man. *pulling off sunglasses*

  • Is it just me? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:42PM (#22871426) Journal
    This is going to stop what kind of crime? Are they going to spot bank robbers in their hideout planning to rob banks? Are they going to stop illegals from going to work? What exactly are they planning to stop?

    If it's drug crimes.. well, think of the children.... sigh

    Oh wait!

    "We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission," he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with "barricaded subjects."
    Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal? The espionage on private citizens elevates continuously in the war on drugs, war on crime, war on civil liberties without making anyone safer IMO. They already use helicopters, now this will put the capability of putting an eye in the sky in multiple locations without the expense of a helicopter and raise the danger level to ordinary citizens most likely.

    Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?
    • wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?

      Yeah, they should just go back to using one-ounce of lead at high velocity to solve all their problems.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Psmylie ( 169236 ) *
      "Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser?"

      Yeah, except the fact that people can still suffer injury or death from tasers, and that the percieved reduced risk with tasers makes police more likely to use them, even in situations that don't really mandate use of force (don't taze me, bro!) and... oh, wait. You were using sarcasm :)

      I agree with you on every point, actually. I'd love to see drugs legalized. Not because I want to use them (I don't, and I won't... I don'

      • I've considered the idea of legalizing drugs many times. In the end I find myself leaning on the side of legalization. The war on drugs has been a waste of money. I think entire drug trade would collapse fairly quickly with legalization much like the end of prohibition hurt organized crime.

        There need to be some very strict conditions placed on drug users. This isn't as simple as someone smoking or injecting themselves with whatever they please. Like it or not what drug users do can have in impact on everyon
    • Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal?

      In LA, helicopters are routinely used for all sorts of shit that elsewhere would normally be handled by something that doesn't cost a cool million a year to operate. I'd even go so far as to say there's a bizarre love affair with the things. To cite one example, during one of the recent fire seasons, Canada

  • And so beings the drone wars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:46PM (#22871482)
    If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

    Maybe they won't be equipped with cameras, they'll probably be just run of the mill R/C helicopters. But they will be sufficient to take out any drones within visible range - just crash the R/C helicopter into the police drone to take it out of commission. If you miss, you just come back for another pass. Worst case, you keep the drone busy dodging the R/C helicopter instead of watching the goings on and best case you get a firey explosion in the sky. It will only take a few $500 R/C helicopter versus $50,000+ drone encounters before the police run out of drones.
    • How high do the R/C craft fly? How high are the drones flying? How hard is it to fly an r/c aircraft into a drone, given parallax?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ChrisA90278 ( 905188 )
      Why bother with an R/C aircraft? A hunting rifle with a scope would kill a drone a lot easier. A more sophisticaled attack would be to jam the drones's radio reciever so it could not be commanded from the ground.

      Actually I think these will be used just like helicopers are used but maybe at 10X less cost.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ShaunC ( 203807 )

      If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

      No doubt. The Coast Guard is already finding submarines [cnn.com], some remote-controlled, operated by drug smugglers. If they can afford million-dollar subs, it won't be long before they get their hands on some $50K drones.

      On the plus side, imagine if a drone full of pot crash-landed in your backyard. Talk about finders keepers! :)

  • The first time one of these things smacks a commercial jet, it's going to be the end of this madness. The lawyers will have a field day, and the city's tax dollars will pay out millions. Oh, they will tell you there are "safeguards" and so on. But it will happen.
    • Very true. Eventually, drones will be equipped with ADS-B (the new air traffic control system that relies on GPS for every aircraft in the area to announce it's position to every other aircraft in the area and the ground) and this won't be as big of a problem (once you can be completely aware of your surroundings, such as with what ADS-B provides, you can make decisions based on that data with software).

      http://www.adsb.gov/ [adsb.gov]

  • I for one welcome our new robot overflying predators.
    What could possibly go wrong?

    http://www.wickedlasers.com/ [wickedlasers.com]
  • I'll just have to remember to pack my crowbar when I go out.

  • Deja vu all over again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by More_Cowbell ( 957742 ) * on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:59PM (#22871632) Journal
    I thought this sounded [slashdot.org] a bit familiar. [slashdot.org]

    Has anyone heard any news on the LA ones, success or failure?

    Personally, I'm not a big fan of more surveillance, though it seems inevitable. What politician (local or national) would stand up and say more cameras in (fill in the blank - schools, roads, public places, etc) is a bad idea. I mean it's all for our safety right? Think of the children and all that?

    At least with the stationary cameras you know when you are being monitored.

  • I don't know how but I would hope responsible citizens would wake the fuck up and start to see the actual machinery of a police state for what it is. These drones are HUGELY expensive. They're flying them at ridiculous cost over the southwest to find and track illegal aliens? Are you fucking kidding me? That money could be better spent actually enforcing the laws that are on the books against employers hiring them in the first place. The cognitive dissonance here is mind-boggling. It proves the point

  • In use in Amsterdam (Score:3, Informative)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2008 @12:59PM (#22871648)
    I don't want to melt an unsuspecting blogger's server so I'll just say search for Amsterdam police uses drone.

    In the blog is a link to a BBC clip [bbc.co.uk] showing the drone like used in Amsterdam.
    It is build by "Microdrones" in Germany and costs around $2,000.
  • Oh yeh... take a look:

    Miami's Drone [reuters.com]

    vs

    the Imperial Probe Droia [firsttvdrama.com]

    you decide...

    tm

  • That reminds me of Chicago's first police department helicopter - revealed June 2007. (news article [newsbank.com])

    Helicopters and drones are both useful for those on-foot police chases, carjacking incidents and general surveillance (can't let those riots get too out of hand!).

  • Who else thought of this when seeing that picture:
    "And, now Your Highness, we will discuss the location of your
    hidden Rebel base...
    wowowowowowowowowow"
  • I certainly don't mind if those drones are flying around me - I just hope they do not look directly into my laser with their remaining eye... *grin*
  • The story about UAV's got 3 times the comments as the story about Javascript, but what do you do for a living? If only the stuff that mattered most was also the stuff that made the most money.

  • I worked at the HI facility in ABQ where this was developed and we called it a flying leaf blower. The noise will inspire anyone to blast it out of the sky.

Slashdot Top Deals

What hath Bob wrought?

Close