Christopher Dorner first drone target on U.S. soil.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Allow me to correct you:

And allow me to correct you. I'm sorry you wasted your time Googling links and writing all that stuff but you should probably take the time to actually read before you respond.

Drones do not need to have pilots that's the entire point, they have automated AI to pilot them. And because its automated it doesn't need pilot trained to take control of predator drones. You don't need to be authorized to shoot missiles it doesn't really require training. It requires the ability to point at a spot on a map, tell it how high up in the air it should be and then be able to operate a camera. So I don't really care how much a predator drone operator gets paid.

We are not talking about predator drones, I don't care how much predator drones cost. The average drone is about the size of a basketball and works more like a high tech automated RC plane.

huzzah super difficult.

nofuckingbody who has thought it through objects to helicopters. YOu then get angry that I assumed you don't object to helicopters and then go right on to say that you don't, in fact, object to helicopters.

The difference is in practicality and effect, not in principle.

Looony has already said most of what needs to be said about this, but really, 'don't require much maintenance?' you realise that they don't fly by magic right, that beneath those sleek white exteriors there is machinery.

Loony already said a bunch of irrelevant stuff yes. You do realize that not all drones are predators right? You do realize that a plane or a helicopters slightly bigger than an RC one doesn't really require much maintenance to keep flying yes? Do I need to copy paste the definition of drone over here or can you go figure that one out yourself?

I remember this, they 'hacked' a drone that had no information security protocols.

Do you understand how hacking works then? Do you understand that they were proving you could connect to another persons drone and that the technology existed and weren't actually trying to hack one but merely to show that it was possible on a basic level?

Do you understand that most hackers call people up and impersonate their bosses, dig through trash for passwords and otherwise break your system without using a computer? And you do realize that if you start having these things around you're going to have a lot of blue collar barely graduated from highschool people back at the police station who can access them, and have little to no idea how to protect their passwords? Systems are almost never beaten because some super computer wizard is back at home typing on a keyboard, they are beaten because the people with access to the system suck at technology.

Are there laws, beyond the FAA, that dictate where police choppers can and cannot fly, what they can and cannot film?

Who cares? We are talking about drones. And they are not beholden to those same laws and regulations with regards to law enforcement use.

how is this a problem on an unarmed drone?

You don't see how not treating people as human beings would allow drone operators to way overstep boundaries in terms of spying and violation of privacy? You think the Jews living in the heart of Berlin in 1943 had it totally great with Gestapos dehumanizing them because, hey at least they weren't being shot at?

In fact, when it comes to armed drones it is beneficial to remove the emotional response from the situation.

No it isn't it's the fucking scary shit that lets US drone operators bomb funerals and then foreign rescue workers showing up to the scene. You think enabling people to feel no empathy while murdering people is a good thing?

A drone will not panic fire, it will not get angry at the loss of another drone and, due to the safety of the operator, we are less likely to see incidents similar to the police shootings that have occurred in this very case.

Yes, instead we are likely to see them callously kill way more civilians than terrorists, and that's so much better. But it's ok because Obama declared everyone killed by a drone strike who isn't a child to automatically be a terrorist regardless of their actually being one or not.

Spoiler

When did he order a drone strike on civilians? Drone strikes are usually used to make precise attacks on high priority enemy targets to avoid harm to civilians.

All the time.

We have killed 391 ? 780 civilians by mid range estimates in Pakistan alone, and that number includes 120 children. Which coupled with the CIAs confirmed kill listing of 14 terrorists, puts the rate at between 50:1 and 25:1. Which is to say 50 civilians killed for every terrorist killed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=2& http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

And we don't even just target residential areas where terrorists might be. We bomb funerals with mourners, and we shoot rescue workers arriving on the scene after drone strikes have occurred. Yes, we kill foreign EMTs, firefighters and paramedics for trying to save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf

The UN launched an investigation to determine if the US drone strikes on civilians constitute war crimes. It will never declare that of course because we have veto power over the UN. But it's pretty telling.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/un-expert-investigates-us-drone-attacks-targeted-killings-that-involve-civilian/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312411432248495.html

which, during a time of massive government debt is bad... how?

Oh you mean the past 50 years? The US will always be in debt because we are a credit card country trying to live beyond our means.

show me what they can do, don't just say 'spying'. A good metric for spying, if the person conducting the activity could legally be doing it in person, it is not spying. It is not spying to surveill a crowded street, but it would be spying to put a drone in your bedroom without a warrant.

They can follow a specific person and watch them, without getting a warrant and without justifiable cause. We require warrants for a reason.

See above as to why it is not spying, and why it is really no different from the cops doing it in person

See above as to why it ignores warrant laws and is completely different.

disagree, what you do in public is by definition not private. Why are you concerned about what people see you doing in the street.

I'm concerned about what the government sees me doing in the streets because the government assassinated US citizens and tried to ruin peoples lives/discredit them.

so your solution is to make the US legal system more unweildly and less cost effective. that is just fantastic.

My solution is to actually consider the consequences of any action rather than just assuming cost efficiency will always make everything better. Can't wait till the cow super viruses transfer to humans, throwing every antibacterial agent at the same bacteria until they become immune to every medical defense we have against them could never backfire, I mean it reduces beef prices.

 

[Glasgow]

Implying the "Land of the free" haven't been violating human rights for years.

Right.

"The USA - shitting over its own past&values ever since Cuba."

You can sort of see why they hate your guts so much in Cuba after reading what you did there. The Banana wars later on didn't help. The big stick usually comes to bite you up the ass. Just look at your image nowadays. Even Australia&New Zealand is treated better than the USA while their history with the natives is pushed aside.

 

[the clockmaker]

Drones do not need to have pilots that's the entire point, they have automated AI to pilot them.

That really depends on the type of drone that we are talking about here. Yes, you can pre-program a flight route into a drone, but most are piloted by the operator.

And because its automated it doesn't need pilot trained to take control of predator drones. You don't need to be authorized to shoot missiles it doesn't really require training.

Yes, you do need authorisation, and no one but you is talking about giving the LAPD hellfires

It requires the ability to point at a spot on a map, tell it how high up in the air it should be and then be able to operate a camera. So I don't really care how much a predator drone operator gets paid.

We are not talking about predator drones, I don't care how much predator drones cost. The average drone is about the size of a basketball and works more like a high tech automated RC plane.

Those also have lesser range, lesser flight time, lesser sensor suites, and do not have the stability necessary to be armed. On top of that remember that the maintenance applies to every drone, so if you have 'hundreds above our cities' then yes, even if you use piss poor, unstable short range drones, there will be a huge maintenance cost.

Loony already said a bunch of irrelevant stuff yes. You do realize that not all drones are predators right?

I made no mention of preds in my post.

You do realize that a plane or a helicopters slightly bigger than an RC one doesn't really require much maintenance to keep flying yes?

Provide evidence of this claim. It flies, it needs maintenance to continue flying. Show some evidence that it requires less than a helo, remembering that you are positing a situation with hundreds of these flying about

Do I need to copy paste the definition of drone over here or can you go figure that one out yourself?

A drone is, for the sake of this conversation, a UAV, an aerial vehicle that does not require the pilot to be physically in the cockpit. Note that that does not greatly affect the maintenance.

Do you understand how hacking works then? Do you understand that they were proving you could connect to another persons drone and that the technology existed and weren't actually trying to hack one but merely to show that it was possible on a basic level?

It proves the insecurity of drones in a similar manner to proving that walking through an unlocked door proves on a basic level that houses can be burgled.

Do you understand that most hackers call people up and impersonate their bosses, dig through trash for passwords and otherwise break your system without using a computer? And you do realize that if you start having these things around you're going to have a lot of blue collar barely graduated from highschool people back at the police station who can access them, and have little to no idea how to protect their passwords? Systems are almost never beaten because some super computer wizard is back at home typing on a keyboard, they are beaten because the people with access to the system suck at technology.

Please show evidence that uneducated pers are going to be in charge of drone operations.

Who cares? We are talking about drones. And they are not beholden to those same laws and regulations with regards to law enforcement use.

you stated that drones could do things legally that helicopters could not, my request was for you to indicate what that was.

You don't see how not treating people as human beings would allow drone operators to way overstep boundaries in terms of spying and violation of privacy? You think the Jews living in the heart of Berlin in 1943 had it totally great with Gestapos dehumanizing them because, hey at least they weren't being shot at?

Really now, there is a police officer looking at you and suddenly you feel like a victim of the motherfucking holocaust. Think about that, really think.

No it isn't it's the fucking scary shit that lets US drone operators bomb funerals and then foreign rescue workers showing up to the scene. You think enabling people to feel no empathy while murdering people is a good thing?

Most war crimes come out of the stress and emotional reactions of the soldiers involved. Reducing war to an emotionless pursuit of objectives reduces the chances of events like My Lai

Yes, instead we are likely to see them callously kill way more civilians than terrorists, and that's so much better. But it's ok because Obama declared everyone killed by a drone strike who isn't a child to automatically be a terrorist regardless of their actually being one or not.

Al Qaeda, the taliban and other organisations of that ilk are insular due to the fear of location, infiltration and destruction. As such, any male between the age of 16-35 (not 'anyone who isn't a child')who is spending time at a compound utilised by these organisations is, within a reasonable degree of certainty, going to be involved in these activities.

I also note that your sources made frequent usage of 'said to' and 'alleged' due to the lack of concrete information regarding the situation on the ground, and yet you simply stated it as fact.

Oh you mean the past 50 years? The US will always be in debt because we are a credit card country trying to live beyond our means.

the time frame is not of immense relevance here, teh US is struggling to pay its bills and you are advocating measures that would exacerbate that based on your incomplete understanding of what spying is and paranoia.

They can follow a specific person and watch them, without getting a warrant and without justifiable cause. We require warrants for a reason.

A police officer can follow you down the street without a warrant.

I'm concerned about what the government sees me doing in the streets because the government assassinated US citizens and tried to ruin peoples lives/discredit them.

If I am thinking of the same US citizens as you, they had taken up a position in an organisation at war with the nation, with the purpose of assisting that organisation in its objectives. They did so working with enemy combatants and outside of the united states.

In addition, I am concerned to see you lifting a the operational situation of the CIA in Yemen and applying it whole cloth to the actions of the LAPD in California.

My solution is to actually consider the consequences of any action rather than just assuming cost efficiency will always make everything better. Can't wait till the cow super viruses transfer to humans, throwing every antibacterial agent at the same bacteria until they become immune to every medical defense we have against them could never backfire, I mean it reduces beef prices.

Straw man, you are implying that I am saying that anything that reduces operational costs and maintenance expenses is by definition a good thing. I am not. I am stating that one of the benefits of this technology, in addition to the (possibly) reduced cost is that it can conduct surveillance and pursuit operations with a lesser degree of risk to the operator and decreased operational friction than standard helicopters.

You seem to be very afraid of this technology based on a misunderstanding of how it is currently applied, an assumption that it will be misapplied in this context and also that it must be used in the same operational context in both the streets of LA and the border regions of Pakistan.

 

[bananafishtoday]

You directed it at me as though answering my request.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry.

OT: The British Times seems to corroborate that the recording is legit... too bad they hide their shit behind a paywall. The Guardian says it doesn't know. But (as both sources point out) there's also an undeniably legit recording of the LAPD saying "Gonna burn it down, get going right now, gonna burn this ************." This was from TV stations rebroadcasting the police scanners, right before the LAPD asked for a media blackout.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3686848.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2013/feb/13/did-the-police-start-fire-that-killed-christopher-dorner

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Yes, you do need authorisation, and no one but you is talking about giving the LAPD hellfires

Reading comprehension. It's not difficult. Well maybe to some people, but please put in an actual effort. You quote someones post and say they are totally correct, incorporating it into your argument, and then act like you didn't. You act like Loony is 100% correct because drone operators are expensive when he quotes statistics on predator drone operators. Do you think they are getting paid that money because no one can figure out how to run a pseudo automatic flight simulator or do you think its because the devices they are using are loaded with missiles?

Are you ESL or do you just always have difficulty understanding basic English?

Those also have lesser range, lesser flight time, lesser sensor suites, and do not have the stability necessary to be armed. On top of that remember that the maintenance applies to every drone, so if you have 'hundreds above our cities' then yes, even if you use piss poor, unstable short range drones, there will be a huge maintenance cost.

Law enforcement reports say you're wrong. They say they can do it just as efficiently for 1/30th the cost. And the professional drones have high quality cameras, even the small ones.

I made no mention of preds in my post.

You quote or otherwise refer to someone else's post in your argument with regards to cost. Their post was all about predator drones. Do not offer up information about predators if you do not want to talk about predators. Otherwise don't ***** at me for responding to subjects you bring up.

Provide evidence of this claim. It flies, it needs maintenance to continue flying. Show some evidence that it requires less than a helo, remembering that you are positing a situation with hundreds of these flying about

Hundreds of them flying about is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is 1:1 because the cost allows there to be more. Obviously if you have 8000 drones flying around its going to cost as much or more than having 10 helicopters. That's the whole point of my argument. That I would rather have 10 helicopters than 8000 drones. How is this so hard for you to understand? You're arguing against the imaginary 'helicopters are more efficient crowd,' and it has nothing to do with the actual subject.

And you're seriously not sure that a 2 pound UAV takes less maintenance than a freaking helicopter? I can't even find data on maintenance costs because that's how little maintenance they require, people don't even list it as a serious cost. Even giant drones like predators cost(and yes they directly apply to the argument by illuminating on the cost comparative) cost like 1/8th of their slightly larger counterpart: jet fighters. [http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/]

A drone is, for the sake of this conversation, a UAV, an aerial vehicle that does not require the pilot to be physically in the cockpit. Note that that does not greatly affect the maintenance.

No, it effect piloting costs, because drones can follow a series of waypoints allowing for a single operator to control multiple drones. How much does a couple monitors sitting in a room with 50 cameras cost? Less than having 50 unnecessary people piloting them for no reason? Less than having 50 helicopter pilots fly around the city?

It proves the insecurity of drones in a similar manner to proving that walking through an unlocked door proves on a basic level that houses can be burgled.

No, it's a lot easier than that, social hacking is minimal risk considering how bad people are at tech security. And once you have the codes you can access them from anywhere, you don't have to walk into the control center to control the drones, as the article you referenced pointed out.

Please show evidence that uneducated pers are going to be in charge of drone operations.

Because everyone is awful at tech security and people get hacked all the time for just that reason? And why would a convention magically disappear just because now it pertains to drone camera security? People suck at this stuff, they will always suck at this stuff. If the freaking pentagon can't keep classified files secure, what the hell makes you think that Joe Blow down at the local police station who took a 12 hour computer competency course will be able to?

you stated that drones could do things legally that helicopters could not, my request was for you to indicate what that was.

No your question was about laws dictating where police choppers could fly and film. You're on like a whole different level of terrible reading comprehension here. Did you even read your own post? "Are there laws, beyond the FAA, that dictate where police choppers can and cannot fly, what they can and cannot film?"

Really now, there is a police officer looking at you and suddenly you feel like a victim of the motherfucking holocaust. Think about that, really think.

What does this have to do with the holocaust? They were never sent to concentration camps, they lived in Berlin and the gestapos watched them. They clearly had it just great.

Most war crimes come out of the stress and emotional reactions of the soldiers involved. Reducing war to an emotionless pursuit of objectives reduces the chances of events like My Lai

Not invading sovereign nations that clearly don't want to be invaded reduces the chances of events like My Lai. Reducing stress and emotional reactions lets us more easily invade sovereign nations and blow up people who don't want to be invaded.

Al Qaeda, the taliban and other organisations of that ilk are insular due to the fear of location, infiltration and destruction. As such, any male between the age of 16-35 (not 'anyone who isn't a child')who is spending time at a compound utilised by these organisations is, within a reasonable degree of certainty, going to be involved in these activities.

We double tap funerals. Funeral goers are within a 'reasonable degree of certainty' all terrorists? And then when we hit them with a second strike 10 minutes later those are all terrorist paramedics right? Declaring everyone we kill isn't good sense, its tantamount to lying so we can cover our asses in media coverage. The same old bullshit they always play where the government cites the media, the media cites the government and everyone abdicates responsibility for blowing people up under the umbrella of "they're all terrerists."

I also note that your sources made frequent usage of 'said to' and 'alleged' due to the lack of concrete information regarding the situation on the ground, and yet you simply stated it as fact.

double tapping funerals isn't alleged. Civilian casualties aren't alleged. Both have been admitted by US sources. They merely don't admit that that many people have died from it. And the allegation is that close to 1000 have died, conservative sources only say as high as 300. I say who gives a shit, we have no good reason to be over there, we are definitely killing civilians, and we wonder why people hate us?

the time frame is not of immense relevance here, teh US is struggling to pay its bills and you are advocating measures that would exacerbate that based on your incomplete understanding of what spying is and paranoia.

The time frame proves the trend. You think they are going to go oh we saved money here lets spend it reducing our debt? Fuck no, they are going to spend it on something else because it's money no one is accounting for that's already in the budget.

And who gives a shit because in the end we are just going to collapse our economy, oil is going to drop the dollar, we will inflate our currency to hell and back, and then we will reinvent the deutschdollar after people start using stacks of rubber-banded dollars as toys for our children.

Because we want things, we don't want to pay for them, and reducing the cost of anything isn't going to change that it's just going to buy something else that we don't need.

A police officer can follow you down the street without a warrant.

A police officer is not made out of wires. In US v Jones the supreme court ruled against technological tracking, citing it as a form of search, and as such violates the 4th amendment against unreasonable search.

Provisions allowing for domestic drone use under the patriot act are in violation of the constitution. These sections have never been tested because to bring a case one must show damages, and drones have never been used domestically; the main story this thread is predicated on is a lie spread by bad journalists.

If I am thinking of the same US citizens as you, they had taken up a position in an organisation at war with the nation, with the purpose of assisting that organisation in its objectives. They did so working with enemy combatants and outside of the united states.

We aren't thinking of the same citizens. I'm thinking of the Beatles. I'm thinking of Albert Einstein. I'm thinking of Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin. I'm thinking of CORE and the SNCC. I'm thinking of student demonstrators against the Vietnam war and for women's rights. I'm thinking of LBJ spying on Nixon and Nixon spying on LBJ and neither of them calling each other on it because they were both violating laws. I'm thinking of MKULTRA. I'm thinking of COINTELPRO. I'm thinking of the Tuskegee experiments.

In addition, I am concerned to see you lifting a the operational situation of the CIA in Yemen and applying it whole cloth to the actions of the LAPD in California.

I'm concerned that you haven't payed any attention to US history.

You seem to be very afraid of this technology based on a misunderstanding of how it is currently applied, an assumption that it will be misapplied in this context and also that it must be used in the same operational context in both the streets of LA and the border regions of Pakistan.

And you seem to have a very poor understanding of English, economics, history and law. You have a difficult time with simple logic equations when used abstractly in comparisons. Issues with consistent misreadings of my posts, posts you reference as well as your own posts(somehow.) As well as an inability to follow consistent trends in data over long periods of time and apply that information to your understanding.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I wonder what would happen if he did use that shoulder-mounted missile he claims to have to shoot down the drone. Does the conflict escalate to an AC-130 pelting the area? Because I have to admit that sounds kind of awesome. Ridiculous, but awesome.

SEND IN THE WARTHOGS! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!

Hell, just have some warthogs blows some random shit in the middle of the desert up, for all I care. I like me them warthogs... and they like the oreos mentioned in the Captcha.

 

[Coppernerves]

I wonder what would happen if he did use that shoulder-mounted missile he claims to have to shoot down the drone. Does the conflict escalate to an AC-130 pelting the area? Because I have to admit that sounds kind of awesome. Ridiculous, but awesome.

SEND IN THE WARTHOGS! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!

Hell, just have some warthogs blows some random shit in the middle of the desert up, for all I care. I like me them warthogs... and they like the oreos mentioned in the Captcha.

Warthogs might be a bit too lethal...

Unless you replace the machine guns with automatic grenade launchers, loaded with CS gas.