Drones Coming Home

[Gunreference1]

Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones

The military says the nearly 7,500 robotic aircraft it has accrued for use overseas need to come home at some point. But the FAA doesn't allow drones in U.S. airspace without a special certificate.

By W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times
February 13, 2012, 9:57 p.m.

With a growing fleet of combat drones in its arsenal, the Pentagon (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/the-pentagon-PLCUL00216.topic) is working with the Federal Aviation Administration (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/regulatory-policy-organizations/federal-aviation-administration-ORGOV00000232.topic) to open U.S. airspace to its robotic aircraft.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/afghanistan-PLGEO00000021.topic) wind down, the military says the drones that it has spent the last decade accruing need to return to the United States. When the nation first went to war after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the military had around 50 drones. Now it owns nearly 7,500.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-military-drones-20120214,0,5726973.story

Steve

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Not sure what they mean by opening airspace? You mean to overfly the US populace or over military bases? I'm not keen on cops having drones let alone the military keeping tabs on us.

[Ronwicp]

Not sure what they mean by opening airspace? You mean to overfly the US populace or over military bases? I'm not keen on cops having drones let alone the military keeping tabs on us.

I think it just means to fly them back home.

[imanaknut]

It will allow the further militarization of the uniformed civilian forces (police).

As it is right now the ability to look into your back yard from above is pretty good. Just look at all the map programs that show "satellite" views. In fact there are many map programs that already use low level photography. All the drones will do is allow real-time surveillance of anybody they choose, and warrants need not be applied for.

Big brother at it's finest. I wish George Orwell was alive to see how accurate his predictions were.

[5.56NATO]

I am sure the regime will try to use robocops every chance it gets, but not to fight crime. More to ensure their regime stays in power.

[Bluntforce]

Drones add a sideways looking capability to intrusion of privacy in rural/industrial areas, with enough clearance they can get low enough to look into buildings. This will be especially true in a country not at war where ground fire preventing such watching will not be a factor.

They will be transported back either in cargo planes or ships. They don't have the range or durability for cross oceanic flight....most of them anyway. It would be a giant waste of fuel to fly them back individually even if possible.

Keep your shades drawn, this won't help against thermal imaging but it might make you feel better.

[Partisan1983]

In other words, they are allowed into any "airspace" they may now wander in.......

[Gunreference1]

U.S. opening up airspace to use of drones

Privacy is a concern as FAA sets rules to take flights out of just military purview
Below:

By Irene Klotz
updated 2/23/2012 12:19:44 PM ET 2012-02-23T17:19:44

After more than 40 years of development and extensive use by the military, the United States has set the date when the nation’s airspace will be open for drones. Should you be scared?

Short answer: No, but like any new technology, unmanned aerial vehicles have their dark side.

Legislation passed by Congress last week gives the Federal Aviation Administration until Sept. 30, 2015, to open the nation’s skies to drones.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46499162/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T0rHqcz-Cc8

Steve

[NAPOTS]

great i can see it now, they are going to put f*cking speed cameras on them and have the drones patrol the highways.

You'll get your ticket in the mail.

[Ronwicp]

Should you be scared, fuck yes. Not because they will be looking in on you, they can already do that with satellites. But because one of the biggest threats we encounter flying into the AOR is those fuckin things just flying around getting in the way.

When we first heard the talk of opening airspace it was to get them home, not to let them fly around all the time.

[Integratedj]

great i can see it now, they are going to put f*cking speed cameras on them and have the drones patrol the highways.

You'll get your ticket in the mail.

And when you do it will be no different than photo radar. Shred it and burn it, you were never legally served and it is meaningless. After a bit they will send servers to your house. Do not open your door to strangers and you can't be served. After a while their time runs out and they can no longer try and serve you. All photo radar is, is a money scam and nothing more, those that pay do not understand due process and are simply sheep following their masters.

I have had 4 photo radar tickets. I have paid none, and legally there isn't a fucking thing they can do about it. 3 of the photos had my fingers in the air to them as I drove by. Fuck em. No insurance dings, no arrest warrants, no suspended licenses because... Photo radar is not actually legal. They geta few suckers, but Arizona had to discontinue the state photo radar programs because of failure to pay, high cost to maintain, and constant legal challenges.

[Oswald Bastable]

I think it just means to fly them back home.

A drone hasn't the fuel reserves to fly from the ME to the US.

[Ronwicp]

No, the talk was ship them to a port and fly them to the base. Or fly them in a cargo plane to a coastal base and they could fly home from there.

[Oswald Bastable]

No, the talk was ship them to a port and fly them to the base. Or fly them in a cargo plane to a coastal base and they could fly home from there.

The first part I could potentially see, but if they're already stowed in a cargo plane, why not just have the cargo plane take them to their destination?

And one would infer if they're stowed as cargo on a ship, they're in some form disassembled. So wouldn't it make more sense to transfer them (in whatever packaging containers they're stored in) to trucks or trains for final delivery?

Sounds to me like the "initial talk" was all about laying the groundwork for flying them in US airspace, for purposes other than transport to home base storage...

[Ronwicp]

The first part I could potentially see, but if they're already stowed in a cargo plane, why not just have the cargo plane take them to their destination?

And one would infer if they're stowed as cargo on a ship, they're in some form disassembled. So wouldn't it make more sense to transfer them (in whatever packaging containers they're stored in) to trucks or trains for final delivery?

Sounds to me like the "initial talk" was all about laying the groundwork for flying them in US airspace, for purposes other than transport to home base storage...

Whatever man. I dont plan these things, I just go to the meetings.

[Oswald Bastable]

Whatever man. I dont plan these things, I just go to the meetings.

LOL!!! Understood and I do grok...

Working for a multinational corp. I can feel your pain. The idiocy that passes for logistics makes me want to bang my head against the wall at times. :)

[TEN-32]

My agency has a couple on order. We've been having a big problem at the skateboard park. Fucking kids on BMX bikes tearing up the ramps. Now we'll catch them fuckerzzzz.

[l921428x]

Gonna use a hellfire on em?

[caaraa]

I never smile. You want a smile, go rent a smile
http://www.primeaffiliate.com/track/images/20.creation.jpg
http://www.canadablackberry.com/imgs/images/2.tod.gif

[TEN-32]

Gonna use a hellfire on em?

Just being sarcastic...

[abpt1]

SKYNET ?

[Bluntforce]

SKYNET ?

I hope so.

[5.56NATO]

Na, skynet's software. These force multipliers will be used by the regime untill one of the regimes external enemies pops an emp about 100 miles above CONUS. Then they may have trouble using those fancy force multipliers.

[Gunreference1]

Updated April 21, 2012, 11:48 p.m. ET

By ANDY PASZTOR (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANDY+PASZTOR&bylinesearch=true) and JOHN EMSHWILLER (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JOHN+EMSHWILLER&bylinesearch=true)

With little public attention, dozens of universities and law-enforcement agencies have been given approval by federal aviation regulators to use unmanned aircraft known as drones, according to documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by an advocacy group.

The more than 50 institutions that received approvals to operate remotely piloted aircraft are more varied than many outsiders and privacy experts previously knew. They include not only agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security but also smaller ones such as the police departments in North Little Rock, Ark., and Ogden, Utah, as well the University of North Dakota and Nicholls State University in Louisiana.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577354331959335276.html

Steve

[insider]

Drones?
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/kids/lightning.jpg
No problem.

[imanaknut]

I can't wait until the estate of some poor private pilot has a mid-air with one of those things and sues the user, the FAA and anyone else their lawyer can think of. One of those times a lawyer would be able to make a name for him/herself and hopefully fix this destruction of our privacy rights!

Just saddened that someone will be sacrificed for the good of all.

[insider]

Have you ever gone skeet shooting?

[Gunreference1]

Feds clearing way for drones over your house

Krauthammer predicts 'rifles aimed at the sky all across America'

Published: 22 hours ago
by Bob Unruh Email (runruh@wnd.com)

The federal government is moving quickly to open the skies over America to drones – both for commercial and government purposes – and respected Washington Post and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer is forecasting “rifles aimed at the sky all across America.”

The comments from Krauthammer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1987 after serving as a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and then beginning his journalism career at The New Republic, were on “Special Report” with Bret Baier.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/feds-clearing-way-for-drones-over-your-house/

Steve

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I think it just means to fly them back home.
Considering the reports lately even from the "mainstream media", my tinfoil hat is actually working properly.

[5.56NATO]

There's a recent vid of one of the preds overflying a ball park here in the US. Nope, no drone use here!

[sevlex]

I can't wait until the estate of some poor private pilot has a mid-air with one of those things and sues the user, the FAA and anyone else their lawyer can think of. One of those times a lawyer would be able to make a name for him/herself and hopefully fix this destruction of our privacy rights!

Just saddened that someone will be sacrificed for the good of all.


This will happen sooner than you think:

http://www.9news.com/news/article/268207/188/Mystery-object-nearly-causes-mid-air-collision

http://www.infowars.com/spy-drone-almost-causes-mid-air-collision-with-jet-over-denver/

:naughty:

[Gunreference1]

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye

Use of military surveillance drones overhead would be un-American

By Andrew P. Napolitano
Thursday, June 7, 2012

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/fox-news-channel/), where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/thomas-jefferson/) would have done if - had they existed at the time - King George III (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/george-iii/) had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/monticello/). I suspect Jefferson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/thomas-jefferson/) and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as someone who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/thomas-jefferson/) understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/7/big-brothers-all-seeing-eye/

Steve

[Gunreference1]

Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance

By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/13/12 09:10 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/232489-sen-paul-proposes-bill-protecting-americans-from-drone-surveillance

Steve

[Gunreference1]

Texas college hacks drone in front of DHS

Published: 27 June, 2012, 22:30
Edited: 28 June, 2012, 22:38

There are a lot of cool things you can do with $1,000, but scientists at an Austin, Texas college have come across one that is often overlooked: for less than a grand, how’d you like to hijack a drone?

A group of researchers led by Professor Todd Humphreys from the University of Texas at Austin Radionavigation Laboratory recently succeeded in raising the eyebrows of the US government. With just around $1,000 in parts, Humphreys’ team took control of an unmanned aerial vehicle owned by the college, all in front of the US Department of Homeland Security.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-1000-us-government-906/

Steve

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance

By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/13/12 09:10 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/232489-sen-paul-proposes-bill-protecting-americans-from-drone-surveillance

Steve Apparently the Constitution runs deep in that family. Sadly it's rare in DC

GunReference, I bet all those scientists are now on the gov't payroll developing ways to prevent what they did. Just as Criminal hackers are quietly hired to secure computer systems.

[Gunreference1]

FAA Has Authorized 106 Government ‘Entities’ to Fly Domestic Drones

By Terence P. Jeffrey (http://cnsnews.com/source/terence-p-jeffrey-0)
July 20, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - Since Jan. 1 of this year, according to congressional testimony (http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony-Dillingham.pdf) presented Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Aviation Administration has authorized 106 federal, state and local government “entities” to fly “unmanned aircraft systems,” also known as drones, within U.S. airspace.

“We are now on the edge of a new horizon: using unmanned aerial systems within the homeland,” House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul (R.-Texas) said as he introduced the testimony.

To reas the rest of the story click the link below.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/faa-has-authorized-106-government-entities-fly-domestic-drones

Steve

[5.56NATO]

I feel "safer" knowing there is a treasonous police state watching everything, don't you?

[Gunreference1]

FAA: No Armed Drones Permitted in US

Thursday, 14 Feb 2013 08:31 AM

An official with the Federal Aviation Administration reassured the public Wednesday that no armed drones will be permitted in U.S. airspace, but he acknowledged the agency can do little about privacy fears associated with the unmanned craft.

In an address to the drone-industry’s leading trade group, which is meeting this week in Northern Virginia, Jim Williams said existing rules already bar aircraft from using weapons and “we don’t have any plans of changing [those rules] for unmanned aircraft.”


To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/faa-armed-drones-us/2013/02/14/id/490377

Steve

[coppertales]

Haven't you guys been watching the news? Memos revealed that obummer thinks he has the sole authority to kill Americans on American soil with the drones. THIS is scary.....chris3

[binky59]

Ok Laser guys, If I ramp up a 80mw red laser would that be enough to blind
a drone? I think that they are using optical recognition programs. I think
that you could overload the optical system, they may still be able to use
their GPS guidance systems, but would be blind optically. Basically the
same as overloading a FLIR system with light.
This is all hypothetical of course......Hee Hee....