Reply With Quote
yeah because encryption can never be broken
You're biggest worry is the Chinese taking one of them over? Holy , there really are a large group of you who hang out with Ned and look for the black helicopters, aren't there?
Or there are at least a lot of stupid people in here.
Just to humor you, I'll answer you how we'd prevent that with one of the many methods avaible. Encryption.
yeah because encryption can never be broken
maybe they have used their intelgance agaencies to find out the code
anyways an army can only have a certian percentage of their millitary automated, you need un automated as back up and to keep in check any thing that can be controlled by others.
I said one of the methods, but I'm not going to argue with a bunch of area51 geeks. Thats pretty pointless.
last I looked, only a certain percentage of our military is automated.
I know how to read just fine, which seems to be more than you're capable of.IF or when the United States of America decided to forceable STOP the citzens of this great nation from leaving the USA. Then I will Be againts the USA using drones to spy and fire on citzens that wish to leave the US for any reason.
Examples:
EAST/WEST German berlin wall
N.Korea
Cuba
I belive that the drones shoudl only be used on borders and to spy and do missions AWAY from the USA. NOT to spy on AMERICAns in the USA.
IF at a point the USA trys to use these "tools" againt the Americans EVEN on the BORDER then I am againts them even in used on the border.
sorry you don't know how to read.
Show me where in that news report it says anything about us using the Predator to keep our own citizens in check.
Best I can tell they want to use it to monitor those trying to enter the country illegally and assist the Border Patrol in preventing said persons from doing so.
Nothing wrong with that, other than your reading comprehension sucking ass.
I didn't say the news did.
I said that I would be in favor of used for border patrol. If they used say to watch over schertz for people speeding I woudl be againts it.
I am expressing what I would be in favor of and where my personal limits would be.
Well that's fine. Call me when they start flying them over Schertz.
if you drive around the UC area you can see cameras on the traffic lights. In london they have cams too. 1984 here just took a little longer
Cameras or traffic sensors?
in victoria they are "sensors" but a close relative works with the city and he says they do have plans to turn them into sensors that are also cameras
im not bull ting..
Britain now has over 4 million CCTV cameras in operation
Posted: 08/06
From: Guardian
Knowing me, knowing you
George Orwell would be shocked at the popular support for the spread of surveillance technology, writes Victor Keegan
Thursday August 4, 2005
There is not much doubt now that the world has entered the age of surveillance - with the UK at the leading edge. Britain now has over 4 million CCTV cameras in operation, the guardian angels of a secular society. If a referendum were to be held in the wake of the terrorists' attacks recommending cameras on every street it would probably be carried overwhelmingly. This is slightly surprising, not just because of the long-term implications for civil liberties, but because video cameras do not seem to have acted as a deterrent to terrorists, even though they have made it easier to identify them afterwards, whether dead or alive.
The main means of tracking terrorist suspects down has been the monitoring of mobile phone conversations. Not only can operators pinpoint users to within yards of their location by "triangulating" the signals from three base stations, but - according to a report in the Financial Times - the operators (under instructions from the authorities) can remotely install software onto a handset to activate the microphone even when the user is not making a call. Who needs an ID card when they can do that already?
On top of all this official scrutiny, there is a growing fashion for mutual personal surveillance from the millions of "smart" phones with built-in cameras and video functions that are getting more powerful by the week. It won't be long, doubtless, before miniaturised cameras will be embedded in spectacles enabling footage to be sent on the hoof to a remote website for archival purposes.
Technology has undoubtedly helped terrorists get organised. The internet is a source for fundamentalist proselytising, information about activities such as bomb making and links to like-minded people, while mobile phones provide constant communication and, in some instances, detonators.
Technology also offers unprecedented ways to track criminals down. But each advance in technological detection produces a counter-reaction from terrorists. Just as there has been a move away from laundering money through the international banking system (towards cash transactions) because of improved governmental monitoring, so the events of the past month could persuade terrorists to abandon mobile phones in favour of more primitive forms of communication such as one-to-one conversations.
As technology continues to advance at a breathtaking pace, the future scope for finding out who we are is quite awesome. The current issue of Business Week lists the ways in which we can be uniquely identified from DNA and radio frequency identification tabs (RFID) to body odour, breath or saliva. There are even scientists working on "gait recognition" so future video cameras can pick us out from the way we walk in a crowd.
The danger from all this is that few people will object as long as there is a serious threat of terrorism. But once (if?) the threat subsides, the infrastructure of surveillance will remain. Then it might not be the police reconstructing a fuzzy image from a crowd to catch a terrorist but an employee of the imaging company extorting money from someone found in a compromising position. As one Business Week contributor observed: "We get most of our security from liberty." If George Orwell were alive now (21 years after the London he depicted in 1984) he would be astonished by the fact that the sort of surveillance he feared is supported not by a government imposing it from above on an unwilling population but by a groundswell of popular support. That's not a problem at the moment. But it will be in future, either if we sign away civil liberties permanently in response to a temporary emergency or if the cost of installing the infrastructure becomes so huge that it erodes our personal prosperity. Either way, Bin Laden would have won.
Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.
Anyway, back to the Predators. Won't these planes be more useful under the guidance of, or with a coordinated effort involving the Border Patrol? Instead of these Predators doing their own thing under the military, and hoping that there are enough agents in the area on land to stop all the illegals coming over? Does this seem more like a PR move by Republicans rather than any serious effort to stem illegal immigration to anyone else?
"PR move by Republicans"
Perry said it was tarted-up bargaining chip to keep military pork in TX.
I just find it really funny when all the black helicopter chasers complain about cameras when there are real threats to civil liberties they don't care about.
I don't so much care that they are to be used on the border, but I wouldn't want them to be used otherwise. If the USA is able to fight a war with similar machines, I am afraid that there would be little to stop the government. They could attack basically any country, and only a small percentage of the country would care because no Americans would be dying. Don't know if any of it is possible or likely, I just think Dan is right, taking the humanity out of war would be a bad thing.
Holy crap! I find myself back against the wall with Manny and Aggie!Who would of thought. I'm sorry, I'm not one to insult anyone here, but those that think that these drones are some part of a government conspiracy are ING IDIOTS!!!
In different parts of the country planes are already used to aid in border patrol and interdiction missions. In California planes are used to catch speeders over long highways. This is more efficient than having hundreds of crusiers patrolling the same area. The plane has proved that it, along with ground units is a more efficient means of patrolling an area.
Now just take that senario and apply it to the border region. It's the same principle just with a little more technology added in. Having no pilot eliminates the need to include all the equipment traditionally needed to keep the pilot alive and comfortable.
The benefits of this are multi-fold. Less weight, more room for other equipment, ability to carry additional fuel, longer operational range are all possidle benefits. This and the fact that not risking a pilots life in each aircraft are very great benefits.
Now something that everyone that's Chickenlittling here seems to forget is that nowhere has anyone said that these planes would be armed. Oh, of course, I know you'll say that the Men In Black will arm them anyways, so we're all doomed. But take this for what it is, a good idea for a great application. If you can't see that then it's tie to add another layer of tinfoil to your head.
Holy crap! I find myself back against the wall with Manny and Aggie! Who would of thought. I'm sorry, I'm not one to insult anyone here, but those that think that these drones are some part of a government conspiracy are ING IDIOTS!!!
In different parts of the country planes are already used to aid in border patrol and interdiction missions. In California planes are used to catch speeders over long highways. This is more efficient than having hundreds of crusiers patrolling the same area. The plane has proved that it, along with ground units is a more efficient means of patrolling an area.
What part of Global war on terror don't you understand? Under the guise of national security these planes can go anywhere at any time, and to think that they could be possibly armed is alarming. Too may of you are caught up in the benefits that these unmanned planes can provide, after all, according to the Neocon pundits, immigration is a hot topic right now, that your not looking at how they can be abused without the appropriate over-sight, which doesn't seem to be in place here.
What are you talking about Dan? How could any missuse be any different from any other plane, ship, or troop in the US military? How is their over-sight any different than those examples? I don't think these planes are soley meant to fight illegal immigration. They have equal duties towards smuggling drugs and possible weapons across the border. I have no idea why you bring politics into discussing these aircraft when politics has nothing to do with. It's like arguing over the politics of using certain brands of toilet paper.
There's politics involved in most everything.
who says they won't?Won't these planes be more useful under the guidance of, or with a coordinated effort involving the Border Patrol? Instead of these Predators doing their own thing under the military, and hoping that there are enough agents in the area on land to stop all the illegals coming over? Does this seem more like a PR move by Republicans rather than any serious effort to stem illegal immigration to anyone else?
That's right, we're doomed. I mean it's not like we haven't had armed National Guard AF fighters up patrolling our skies since 9/11. It's not like we didn't scramble jets on 9/11 with the possibility of having to shoot down a commercial airliner. We're obviously doomed with a couple of piddly little unarmed Predators flying around.Under the guise of national security these planes can go anywhere at any time, and to think that they could be possibly armed is alarming.
Immigration isn't a hot topic. Most people don't have a problem with legal immigration. Now, if you want to talk about the people invading south Texas, invading homes and stealing property that are here illegally, you got me.Too may of you are caught up in the benefits that these unmanned planes can provide, after all, according to the Neocon pundits, immigration is a hot topic right now, that your not looking at how they can be abused without the appropriate over-sight, which doesn't seem to be in place here.
And damn the Necon revolution it sounds like you have unconvered the latest Republican plot against Mexicans coming across illegally - Operation Chupacabra, where the Predators will be armed with special missiles with special biological weapons that only target those with hispanic genes. Guess Bush is going to have to shut it down for now, you're on to him.
"Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.".................................Are you out there doing something wrong Dan?
If he doesn't want to be caught on camera 24/7, I'd suggest that Nbadan stay away from all those socialist European countries he thinks we should more closely resemble. The UK has more cameras in different places than Paris Hilton's beach house.Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.
I reserve the right to do something wrong, but why should I surrender my rights just because I step onto a public place, or even worse, even if I'm on my own property but outside? I mean, sure using cameras to provide security is fine if your on private property, like at a Mall, but if I'm driving down a street, or sunbathing on a public beach or at home, I think everyone should reserve some right to privacy.Are you out there doing something wrong Dan?
I wonder why they call it public property?
If I do something illegal, and no one sees it, is it really illegal?
I reserve the right to commit illegal acts on my property where anyone can see me do it, but just not video tape it! (
I believe cops should be blindfolded, because they have no right to see anything I do that's illegal and then arrest me.
You might be living next to NbaDan if there's a big ball of foil in your neighbor's back yard, and your neighbor's in it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions