"Small drones stir privacy concerns in the US; Personal devices can by bought for only $300" by Michael S. Rosenwald | Washington Post, September 01, 2013
WASHINGTON — Kevin Good thought there was an 80 percent chance he could deliver his brother’s wedding rings with a tiny drone.
‘‘The other 20 percent is that it could go crashing into the bride’s mother’s face,’’ the Bethesda cinematographer somewhat jokingly told his brother.
His brother was OK with those odds, so he signed off.
A few weeks ago, sitting in the back row at the ceremony near San Francisco, Good steered the drone to the altar, delivering the payload in front of 100 or so astonished guests. His brother grabbed the rings, then watched as Good buzzed the drone off into the blue sky.
‘‘At the end of the wedding, that was what everyone was talking about,’’ Good said. ‘‘It was pretty awesome.’’
This is the gee-whiz side of drones, a technology typically associated with surprise air assaults on terrorists. Drones designed to do the bidding of ordinary people can be bought online for $300 or less.
They are often no larger than hubcaps, with tiny propellers that buzz the devices hundreds of feet into the air. But these flying machines are much more sophisticated than your average remote-controlled airplane: They can fly autonomously, find locations via GPS, return home with the push of a button, and carry high-definition cameras to record flight.
Besides wedding stunts, personal drones have been used for all kinds of high-minded purposes — helping farmers map their crops, monitoring wildfires in remote areas, locating poachers in Africa. One local drone user is recording his son’s athletic prowess from a bird’s-eye view, for recruiting videos. But not every flier is virtuous.
There are videos on YouTube of people arming drones with paintball guns. In one video — apparently a well-done hoax to promote a new video game — a man appears to fire a machine gun attached to a small drone and steer the device into an abandoned car to blow it up.
Privacy and civil rights activists worry about neighbors spying on each other and law enforcement agencies’ use of drones for surveillance or, potentially, to pepper-spray protesters.
“Drones make it possible to invade privacy without even trespassing,” said Amie Stepanovich, a surveillance expert at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
But already, several law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Queen Anne’s County sheriff’s office on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, have purchased the devices.
Meanwhile, as many as 40 states, including Maryland, have considered legislation to limit police drone use or ban the devices. A Colorado town is weighing an ordinance to allow hunters to shoot down drones.
Drone defenders, including the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, say those fears are overblown and threaten the potential economic benefits of commercial drones. The group predicts 70,000 new US jobs and a nearly $14 billion economic boost.
Yeah, what are you trying to do, ruin a going concern of an indu$try?
--more--"
Looks like I'm standing you up at the alter.
Also see: Do You Hear a Buzzing Sound?
It's a good sound:
"Drones migrate from battlefields to fields; Scientists retrofit technology, monitor wildlife" by Sean Patrick Farrell | New York Times, May 07, 2013
MONTE VISTA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Colo. — An electric whir filled the air of this high desert valley as Jeff Sloan, a cartographer for the US Geological Survey, hurled a small remote-controlled airplane into the sky.
The plane, a 4½-pound AeroVironment Raven, dipped; then its plastic propeller whined and pulled it into the sky.
There, at an altitude of 400 feet, the Raven skimmed back and forth, taking thousands of high-resolution photographs over a wetland teeming with ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes.
The Raven, with its 55-inch wingspan, looks like one of those radio-controlled planes beloved of hobbyists. But its sophisticated video uplink and computer controls give it away as a small unmanned aerial system, better known as a drone.
Drone technology, which has become a staple of military operations, is now drawing scientists with its ability to provide increasingly cheaper, safer, and more accurate and detailed assessments of the natural world.
“This is really cutting edge for us,’’ said Jim Dubovsky, a migratory-bird biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for the health of more than a thousand bird species.
Designed to monitor enemy positions from afar, the early Ravens, from about 2005, which cost $250,000 per system, were slated for destruction when an Army colonel thought they might be better used for scientific research and were donated to the Geological Survey.
They were retrofitted for civilian life with new cameras and other gauges. Their first noncombat mission was counting sandhill cranes.
Traditionally, species counts are done by a biologist flying in a small plane or a helicopter. While many missions will still require the range of those craft and the experienced eyes of a scientist, drones offer many advantages, including the ability to fly very close without scaring animals.
It's a loving tyranny.
‘’I think I’m the only electrical engineer who’s ever applied for a marine mammal harassment permit,’’ Gregory Walker, director of the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said, referring to a federal permit necessary for close study of the animals.
He has used drones to gather images of seals and sea lions that might have slipped underwater as a full-size plane or helicopter approached.
Though such mammals are less startled by drones than by airplanes, birds, particularly easily spooked species like cranes, require a more cautious approach.
In 2010, when researchers first tried out the Raven, no one knew what to expect; there were even worries that the birds might fly into the drone. While that did not happen, the cranes promptly scattered, perhaps mistaking it for a predatory eagle.
But then the scientists changed their approach. Sand-hill cranes settle in the wetlands each evening and rarely move until morning, making them an easy target for a drone with a thermal imaging camera.
Video of the birds appeared as ‘‘a bunch of rice grains on a piece of paper, a dark piece of paper,’’ Dubovsky said. A complete count, which was conducted in an evening, proved to be as accurate as manned flight counts.
Since that flight, drones have scanned Idaho’s backcountry for pygmy rabbits; been battered by trade winds and rain in Hawaii while monitoring fencing protecting rare plant species; and gauged the restoration of the recently undammed Elwha River in northwest Washington.
They are already flying overhead in AmeriKa.
Every week brings more requests from other Interior Department agencies, Sloan said. The greatest problem now is a lack of trained pilots and equipment.
Politics may affect the studies as well. Last week Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, called for halting wildlife drone missions as a cost-saving measure under the federal budget sequestration.
Another hurdle is getting clearance to fly. Federal Aviation Administration approvals for this year’s sandhill crane study came too late for the peak migration to Colorado, so crew members tested new camera systems and mapping abilities and demonstrated the drone’s operation for a journalist.
The FAA is working on new guidelines that will smooth the integration of private commercial drones into the airspace in 2015. Until then, most scientific flights are operated experimentally by the federal government and by public institutions such as the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the University of Florida, which have robust drone research programs.
Those new rules cannot come soon enough for Phillip A. Groves, a fisheries biologist with Idaho Power, which operates dams on the Snake River. He sees drones as a safer alternative to manned flights. Three years ago a biologist and a pilot he knew were killed while on a salmon survey when their helicopter crashed.
While small drones do have drawbacks, including short battery lives, they can be flown in less-than-ideal weather and in areas where a manned craft might not venture.
Groves said he had steered his drones into canyons with 40 miles-an-hour gusts — enough to abort a manned helicopter mission. The device struggled but flew, and no one’s life was put in danger.
And that margin of safety, Groves said, is ‘‘priceless.’’
I don't want people dying, but maybe you ought to just leave the animals alone.
--more--"
"Update to privacy laws urged as use of drones increases
WASHINGTON — Privacy laws urgently need to be updated to protect the public from information-gathering by the thousands of civilian drones expected to be flying in US skies in the next decade or so, legal specialists told a Senate panel Wednesday.
What a rotten, shitty world we will be entering if we make it past the last phase of the Jew World Order.
A budding commercial drone industry is poised to put mostly small, unmanned aircraft to countless uses, from monitoring crops to acting as lookouts for police SWAT teams....
And the contract$, the contract$!
Drones can be flown more cheaply, for longer periods of time, and at less risk to human life. That makes it likely that surveillance and information-gathering will become much more widespread, legal experts said....
Even more than it is now with them scooping up all world communications and movements.
--more--"
I'm counting on Markey to protect our privacy.
"Drone makers struggle for acceptance" by David Uberti | Globe Correspondent, April 07, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Danvers-based drone manufacturer CyPhy Works doesn’t build flying robots that rain Hellfire missiles on people or record license plate numbers from 40,000 feet. Its drones are designed for peaceful missions — aerial inspections of buildings and bridges, or observing crime scenes.
But CyPhy and other manufacturers are battling the negative images of better-known military drones as they struggle to win public and political acceptance for commercially marketed drones for domestic airspace. The consequences are significant for a nascent industry that claims the potential to create 70,000 US jobs by 2017, including 2,000 in Massachusetts.
The use of drones to combat terrorism overseas is attracting increasingly negative attention in Washington. President Obama is considering taking its lethal drone program away from the Central Intelligence Agency and placing it in the hands of the Pentagon, which has greater restrictions and accountability.
Related: Sunday Globe Special: U.S. Military Saving Endangered Species
DIA is CIA!
Lawmakers, meanwhile, including Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a candidate for Senate, are introducing legislation to limit how drones can be used by law enforcement, firefighters, farmers, the media, and others in American skies.
The domestic drone industry is scrambling to respond in Washington in public testimony, lobbying, and trade conferences — with limited effectiveness. Companies are trying to purge the word “drone’’ and its lethal connotations from the lexicon — an effort that is failing dismally so far.
“I appreciate you telling us what we should call them. You leave that decision to us,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy snapped, as an industry association representative vainly sought to persuade senators at a hearing to use terms like “pilotless vehicle.’’
Founded in 2008, CyPhy unveiled its first commercial drone models in December. They are nothing like the American robotic weapons flying over Pakistan and Yemen. CyPhy’s EASE drone, ideal for aerial inspections, fits into a backpack, while the PARC model is tailored to longer-term observation of crime scenes or disaster areas.
Other companies producing drones boast of firefighting capabilities and real-time weather analysis. The largest industry trade group — the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International — predicts that most manufacturing growth will be spurred by agriculture demand and law-enforcement work.
But civil liberties advocates unleashed a torrent of criticism last year when Congress mandated the Federal Aviation Administration to craft regulations for drone use in US skies by the end of 2015. Fears of unwarranted privacy violations, domestic spying, and even questions about armed attacks on US soil reached a crescendo this month and forced the industry into a defensive posture.
How those regulations are shaped will have a major impact on whether the market for domestically operated drones truly takes off.
Markey’s legislation, introduced last week, aims to prevent “flying robots from becoming spying robots,” a statement said. His legislation would not permit an FAA license unless the applicant discloses who will operate the drone, where it will be flown, what sort of data it will collect, how the data will be used, and whether the information will be sold to third parties.
Concern about the potential use of domestic drones reached its peak on March 6 when Kentucky Republican Rand Paul mounted a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor questioning the Obama administration’s ability to preemptively target American citizens suspected of terrorist activities.
Also see: Nominated For Your Consideration: On Drones Brennan Confirmation
His confirmation moved forward.
“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty by a court,” Paul declared.
Then why did you indicate you had no problem with a liquor store robber getting blown away?
And if he's charged and found guilty by a court on an American soil, wouldn't he already be in custody? What, Rand, drones going to be an option for execution now?
The administration’s response — that it had no power to target citizens within US borders — didn’t end the argument, and start-up executives, and engineers and inventors around the country have been shocked by the depth of the controversy.
I'm shocked that they would be shocked.
“It comes up in almost every conversation about the products and the company and the way forward,” CyPhy director of operations Jason Walker said. “The word [drone] has a lot to do with it. The idea that there are these robots flying around mindlessly doing some nefarious thing is not accurate. From a technical standpoint, it’s silly.”
Advocates of the fledgling domestic industry — ranging from biologists to border patrol agents — are now rallying resources to stem the tide of bad press.
“This happened so fast that it took all of us aback,” Stephen Ingley, director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, said at an unmanned systems conference in March in Arlington, Va.
He added that the industry doesn’t have the political clout or social foothold to shift the conversation from potential dangers to likely benefits.
Or the campaign contribution$?
To be sure, UAV proponents agree that privacy concerns are valid, acknowledging the potential for misuse among criminals, paparazzi, and government agencies. But they contend the anxiety is overblown, as drone sensors and cameras are no different than those used in manned aircraft.
“This is more than a pilotless vehicle,” Michael Toscano, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said at Leahy’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, convened to consider privacy risks. “There’s nothing unmanned about unmanned systems.’’
Though defense giants that produce military drones have been lobbying Congress for years, smaller start-ups and inventors began seeking to influence lawmakers’ opinions only in 2007.
No clout there.
The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, cochaired by Representatives Buck McKeon of California and Henry Cuellar of Texas, has grown to nearly 60 members. It aims to “educate” lawmakers on an industry that will “improve our lives as public acceptance progresses,” according to its website.
Caucus members have garnered nearly $8 million in campaign contributions from drone firms over the past four years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in government. The industry trade group, meanwhile, has doubled its lobbying expenditures to about $250,000 annually as Congress and government agencies craft regulations.
Ha$n't bought 'em a damn thing, huh?
At a trade meeting held at a Virginia Tech research center last week, industry leaders discussed the need to increase public outreach to overcome drones’ cloak-and-dagger stigma.
The emphasis on dagger!
Physical Sciences Inc. in Andover is among the firms making the transition from defense to domestic uses, tailoring drones for law enforcement agencies and anticipating a price tag of $1,000 or less, said Tom Vaneck, vice president of space technologies.
Related: A Springfield Success Story
I hate it when us crazy conspiracists are right.
Though his firm hasn’t thought of a catchy replacement for the term UAV, it has begun discussing more proactive ways to laud everyday uses such as aiding first responders. Such efforts will probably target youth at the local level since “the younger generation is almost always more open to new technology,” he said.
And BRAINWASHING!
“Let’s go to grade schools and have kids fly one of these things,’’ Vaneck said, “so it’s not the boogeyman anymore.”
A true fa$ci$t.
Mary Cummings, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, said public suspicion will dissipate as the technology becomes more familiar. She’s one of the few in the industry who doesn’t mind the “drone’’ moniker.
“If that’s the name the public wants to call it, then let’s just make a real definition of it,” the former Navy fighter pilot said. Besides, she added, “it’s not a mouthful.”
They just keep droning on and on in their world of delusion.
--more--"
Maybe they might have better luck in Europe.
"US must guide the world on new rules for drones" May 25, 2013
There was much to applaud in President Obama’s landmark speech about counterterrorism on Thursday, which signaled that America’s 12-year “war on terror” must soon come to an end.
See: Obama Opens His Mouth Again
It was refreshing to hear the president speak openly about drones for the first time. In his long-awaited acknowledgment of the once-secret program, he both offered a vigorous defense of drones — “these strikes have saved lives” — and a pledge to limit their use.
After he expanded their use.
For an administration that is believed to have launched about 300 drone attacks — five times as many as under George W. Bush — it was high time to admit the program’s existence and offer a legal and moral justification for it. Obama did just that, and more.
That was change in the wrong direction.
He explained that drones are often the least destructive way to fight people in remote, dangerous places who are actively conspiring against the United States. Drones are more accurate than bombs lobbed out of planes. They are not as deadly as ground wars. The debate about drones has overshadowed the fact that it is, above all, civilian casualties that should concern us, not what kind of weapon delivers the blow against a legitimate terrorist target.
But the president still needs to be clearer about what constitutes a legitimate target. Obama promised that strikes will be reserved for individuals who pose a continuing imminent threat to Americans, when no other alternative can be found to address the threat. Drones will be a tool of last resort.
These broad principles are reasonable, but how they will be applied makes a difference. The president promised greater restraint and oversight, but he didn’t outline how he would achieve it. Will the drone program be transferred from the CIA to the Pentagon? Will the ostensibly strict guidelines for strikes ever be made public?
For the first time, Obama expressed a willingness to consider a special “drone court” to weigh evidence against targets — a welcome step for those who worry that the president is acting as both judge and executioner.
They do present him with a kill list, yeah.
Ultimately, the American people must come up with a system that satisfies our conscience, our Constitution, and our right to self-defense. It was a relief to hear that the White House has briefed Congress on every drone strike, but that is no substitute for due process during peacetime.
This is precisely why the “war on terror” has dragged on so long. The authorization for the use of force in the wake of 9/11 has served as the legal foundation for drones, and so many other expanded powers that would not have been granted outside of war. Now, as the US faces new threats that have nothing to do with the attacks of 2001, Congress and the White House should revisit this piece of legislation to put the country on a different path.
Policy makers are scrambling to figure out how to legally retain just enough of these war powers to allow for limited drone strikes. Whichever approach they take will have implications well beyond America’s borders. As the methods of war evolve, so too must the laws that govern war.
Why not outlaw war?
Other countries are pursuing drone technology. It is not too late for the United States to lead the world in developing universally accepted rules and standards to which we can eventually hold our adversaries accountable.
Like the chemical weapons crap regarding Syria?
--more--"
Also see: Drones may soon buzz through local skies
And no, it wasn't a UFO!
