States and drones

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Earlier, a few of us mentioned the use of drones by the BO admin over Nebraska.
We also have mentioned the use of them to kill American terrorists on foreign soil without trial.
As our liberties errode, all for "good" reasons, several states have decided to act.
Heres some good reasons right here:
The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions.

The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and 295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications.

“We need a list so we can ask [each agency], ‘What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?’ ” Ms. Lynch said.

“Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates,” said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

This world is getting smaller, now I ask you, should we move quicker to make it so?
If you live in the city, youre most likely to try and "get away", if you dont, you know how this feels already.
Whats your thoughts here?

We just may find "fly over country" just isnt so
Heres a list of states possibly eliminating or banning outright their usage at the state level, and so far doesnt address the fed level
California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Fine, if they want to wage war on the American people then arm yourselves with information. Lots more at link.


How to kill UAVs

The UAVs have two alternative systems for communication.

Line of sight radio :
In the military C-Band 500 - 1000 MHz that can be jammed with simple spark-gap radio

Satellite communication :
In the Ku-Band between 10.95 - 14.5 GHz, and the satellite can be jammed.
The Uplink-Band to the satellite is 13.75 - 14.5 GHz
The Downlink-Band from the satellite is 10.95 - 12.75 GHz
And you should jam the Uplink frequencies with a jammer directed at the satellite.

http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb907234/killuav.htm

Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.

Now, would that be legal, and would the BO admin let you?

 

[wanamingo]

Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.

With an AR15, or a shotgun with a pistol grip? Lol.

I also have a feeling that OMG jamming is old news, I could be wrong but I hope our military has defenses against jamming. I imagine its not too hard to program a drone to hit the interfering signal if communication is dropped. Or the drone just logs the location of the signal and returns to base. Then they bomb the interfering signal.


This link is very significant

That drone can take 1.8 billion megapixel video, 5,000 hours of it. That means from almost 18,000 feet they can track the position of everyone in 15 square miles.

Or who knows maybe the Giant prepper compound they are building out west will incorporate This technology.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Time to fire up the PEMP, or, Portable EMP heheh

 

[MU_Engineer]

With an AR15, or a shotgun with a pistol grip? Lol.

Somebody would use ex-Soviet/Pakistani/Iranian shoulder-fired SAMs bought on the black market, just like every two-bit terrorist does. Illiterate half-blind terrorists without two nickels to rub together manage to get them and shoot down U.S. Black Hawks with them. That's how it would be done in the real world.

 

[wanamingo]

Iran claims to have shot down 4 drones in the last few years, the only drone with video and photo evidence is the one they "Shot Down' or "retrieved" after it crashed.

Can anyone else find examples of drones lost in combat, specifically of being shot down?

The reason I ask is because a quick google search of some older model SAM rockets told me that a significant portion of surface to air missiles would have difficulty hitting a target over 10,000 -13,000 feet. And none could reach over 18,000.

And then I imagine DARPA has a fleet of stealth drones that are flying very high, and are more than likely protected against EMP. EMP shielding is actually pretty easy to make.

Not to throw cold water on this discussion but I think taking down a drone would be very very difficult. Your best bet would be to try and jam continually from multiplt locations, until you made it New Mexico and slapped the mouse out of the pilots hand.

 

[musical marv]

Earlier, a few of us mentioned the use of drones by the BO admin over Nebraska.
We also have mentioned the use of them to kill American terrorists on foreign soil without trial.
As our liberties errode, all for "good" reasons, several states have decided to act.
Heres some good reasons right here:
The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions.

The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and 295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications.

“We need a list so we can ask [each agency], ‘What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?’ ” Ms. Lynch said.

“Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates,” said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

This world is getting smaller, now I ask you, should we move quicker to make it so?
If you live in the city, youre most likely to try and "get away", if you dont, you know how this feels already.
Whats your thoughts here?

We just may find "fly over country" just isnt so
Heres a list of states possibly eliminating or banning outright their usage at the state level, and so far doesnt address the fed level
California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma.

Drones have their pros and cons. Attacking citizens like you say abroad like Alacki was a good thing. he was a terrorist planning to strike the U.S. and kill innocent civilians.Drones on the other hand trying to see what other civilians are doing are not .This is over reaching and being really not democratic to do this. This is invading privacy of others and i am glad other states are saying no to these actions.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Drones have their pros and cons. Attacking citizens like you say abroad like Alacki was a good thing. he was a terrorist planning to strike the U.S. and kill innocent civilians.Drones on the other hand trying to see what other civilians are doing are not .This is over reaching and being really not democratic to do this. This is invading privacy of others and i am glad other states are saying no to these actions.

I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.

@wanamingo:
There is another way to stop the drones with those missiles. Firing them at the politicians in favor of the drone spying is likely to be much more effective at stopping the drones than directly firing them at the drones. A SAM locked on a corrupt dictator's limo will render it deader than the skunk in the middle of the road. That's the big reason those kinds of weapons are illegal and why the government is talking about wanting to ban certain rifles rather than handguns in an attempt to stop crime despite the fact that the crimes they are officially trying to stop are nearly all carried out with handguns.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Maybe we should just kill all snakes with drone strike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK-IK2h0yoo
Or maybe a few americans too, and throw in spying on your neighbor by hiring (future slots available) with a private eye in the sky

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Or
Maybe we should just waterboard the people who made it legal to use them?
Find out whos really behind it, tho it doesnt really work, but killing sure does.
It used to be, we wouldnt go after our enemies leaders, and certainly not picking them out specifically.
Just as isolation made this country, and kept it safe, so too does it do this for our enemy leaders, where their followers are often left with a very narrow view of the world.

We of course want this to stop, but at some point, just as we realized we couldnt realy use nukes, we approach that line again here

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I can see it now:
Eye in the sky detective agency
Offering GitMo Drones, where the "we dont need no stinking laws" is flown in the face of our constitution, and this means everyone, Liberties not required

 

[MU_Engineer]

I heard in a radio interview yesterday the "drone" industry is a $33 billion a year industry. That's a lot of drones.

I would guess that it's not as many drones as you think, they are just very, very expensive. Remember the big contractors that build the drones are the same ones that led to the $600 toilet seat jokes in the '80s.

 

[johnsonma]

Why would you use a surface to air missile on a limo? I don't think it would work like it does on battlefield.

 

[chunkymonster]

I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.

Totally agree!

What can not be done with man-power and associated resources is being mitigated by technology.

18,000 feet overhead and aloft for days.

Silent. Warrant-less.

For a safe and secure society.

 

[wanamingo]

Let me hit you with a hypothetical.....

A small police office uses a drone to track a car during a high speed chase, keeps them from having to call in a helicopter crew, and all of the expenses that are involved....

Or to catch people poaching on private or protected lands?


Or drones to monitor after natural disasters? To hand out resources more effectively.

I built a model rocket with a camera on it, does that classify as a drone? Or really a model plane enthusiast puts a GoPro on his plane, is that a drone?

What about the Burrito Bomber or the TacoCopter?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

People live where the poachers poach, and hate poachers more than those wwho protect, as they degrade the land where those people live.
So, flying over them does as well.
Currently in Chicago, calling 911 wont bring an officer unless it meets certain criteria, which only leaves speculation, which also puts people in harms way, say someone calling on a burglary, the cops wont come, even if its their neighbors house, and the caller doesnt know if its a home invasion as example.
No war has been won without feet on the ground, period, is my point, and to throw our liberties away left and right for a "better society" is again another loss for all of us, just like killing without confirmation using drones.
If youre the prez, the guv, and you send out drones instead of making an appearance, well, ask GW about that.
As for the rocket, I too thought of that, tho in my day, the color pictures camera was too expensive, and only a friend had the B&W one.

 

[musical marv]

I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.

@wanamingo:
There is another way to stop the drones with those missiles. Firing them at the politicians in favor of the drone spying is likely to be much more effective at stopping the drones than directly firing them at the drones. A SAM locked on a corrupt dictator's limo will render it deader than the skunk in the middle of the road. That's the big reason those kinds of weapons are illegal and why the government is talking about wanting to ban certain rifles rather than handguns in an attempt to stop crime despite the fact that the crimes they are officially trying to stop are nearly all carried out with handguns.

This really sounds like double talking someone with mixed signals.What does the government really want?

 

[MU_Engineer]

This really sounds like double talking someone with mixed signals.What does the government really want?

Governments want power, period. The politicians in the government would love to be able spy on anybody they want to, namely their political enemies and rivals, in order to keep tabs on them and also dig up dirt to discredit them. Such things have happened in many other countries although not with using drones. Think of what happened in the Soviet Bloc and in China with the spying on anybody considered to not be 100% in support of the latest political policy of the government.

My comment about the cat being out of the bag with regards to spying is because we can already be spied on by the government with wiretaps, satellites, etc. Drones do not necessarily bring anything new to the table. My impression of the drone issue is that it is a trial balloon. The government wishes to increase the amount of spying it does and drones are much more visible than spy satellites and remote wiretaps. People being all ruffled about drones tells the government they ought to not push the spying issue much more right now. Also, if people don't care a whole lot about the drones, then it tells the government that they can spy a lot more on the citizenry without any real consequences.

So there are some mixed signals- but it all boils down to the government continuing to test the waters with how much power the people will let them have.

 

[chunkymonster]

Let me hit you with a hypothetical.....

A small police office uses a drone to track a car during a high speed chase, keeps them from having to call in a helicopter crew, and all of the expenses that are involved....

Or to catch people poaching on private or protected lands?


Or drones to monitor after natural disasters? To hand out resources more effectively.

I built a model rocket with a camera on it, does that classify as a drone? Or really a model plane enthusiast puts a GoPro on his plane, is that a drone?

What about the Burrito Bomber or the TacoCopter?

Maybe the small police office call the next town over or contact the State Police and engage in some good old fashion coordinated police tactics. Maybe they decriminalize marijuana possession and rather than locking up every black person with less than 2oz use the police resources to go after the growers. Maybe we get rid of FEMA altogether (as Sandy has prove to NJ & NY they are completely incompetent) and let the States coordinate with each other to secure the supplies and resources to address natural disasters.

There are other alternatives that local and State police have available than drones to achieve the same result.

I'm just saying...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

It wasnt FEMA, it was Bushes fault, until.....it was needed again

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And, dont forget, this is the newer and improved FEMA as well

 

[wanamingo]

Have you guys ever seen an AC130?

Like in real life (None of the MW2 of Bf3 chit gents)

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yes, on the ground, didnt board it tho

 

[musical marv]

Governments want power, period. The politicians in the government would love to be able spy on anybody they want to, namely their political enemies and rivals, in order to keep tabs on them and also dig up dirt to discredit them. Such things have happened in many other countries although not with using drones. Think of what happened in the Soviet Bloc and in China with the spying on anybody considered to not be 100% in support of the latest political policy of the government.

My comment about the cat being out of the bag with regards to spying is because we can already be spied on by the government with wiretaps, satellites, etc. Drones do not necessarily bring anything new to the table. My impression of the drone issue is that it is a trial balloon. The government wishes to increase the amount of spying it does and drones are much more visible than spy satellites and remote wiretaps. People being all ruffled about drones tells the government they ought to not push the spying issue much more right now. Also, if people don't care a whole lot about the drones, then it tells the government that they can spy a lot more on the citizenry without any real consequences.

So there are some mixed signals- but it all boils down to the government continuing to test the waters with how much power the people will let them have.

I think the government is getting much to powerful now and interfering to much in our personal business.We do not need another China now.That country cannot be trusted at all.