UAVs to be used for CCTV

Let me guess, next it will be;

'ENEMY AC130 IN THE AIR!'

'stop, you are breaking the law!' BOOOOOOOOOOOM
that'll make sure granny doesn't go littering again.
 
Didn't think you could fly UAV's in civil airspace.
Will make my life a lot easier while I'm building and testing them.

I'm part of project to build them for farming purposes.
 
Bad idea
significant expansion of covert state surveillance.
Click to expand...

If it was to replace police helicopter rolls, that would be great. As I imagine they are far cheaper and as such you could have a few more around a city.

Also using the American wasp plane. They could be put in the back of police cars and used by cops if needed when chasing criminals.

AdamDaniels88 said:
Didn't think you could fly UAV's in civil airspace.
Will make my life a lot easier while I'm building and testing them.

I'm part of project to build them for farming purposes.
Click to expand...

surly that depends on size and where you are flying them. Afterall they are only radio controlled planes.
 
Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the *"routine" monitoring of antisocial motorists, *protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.
Click to expand...

What.

Honestly?
 
Urrrggghhhhh, I'm so sick of seeing this story being misreported by the main stream press. Although, this version isn't as bad as the Daily Mails version.
 
Can someone opposed to this say why, without mentioning 1984?

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" really ****** people off but in this case it surely applies. It won't see anything that someone in a police helicopter, (or walking down the street) wouldn't.

I guess the fact that it is bound to be used in a worthless fashion is one reason :p
 
Last edited:
Strife212 said:
Can someone opposed to this say why, without mentioning 1984?

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" really ****** people off but in this case it surely applies. It won't see anything that someone in a police helicopter, (or walking down the street) wouldn't.

I guess the fact that it is bound to be used in a worthless fashion is one reason :p
Click to expand...

You are giving away your freedom, bit by bit.

Do you honestly not care about your privacy? It's feasible this kind of system could be used for tracking people, gathering location data, known associates, profiling etc (and not just bad people). Data evidently gets lost, stolen and sold....

And it is not a preventive measure unlike standard CCTV, it's not like criminals will look up and search for drones before committing a crime.
 
Strife212 said:
Can someone opposed to this say why, without mentioning 1984?

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" really ****** people off but in this case it surely applies. It won't see anything that someone in a police helicopter, (or walking down the street) wouldn't.

I guess the fact that it is bound to be used in a worthless fashion is one reason :p
Click to expand...

because it's not like a helicopter. They aren't expensive, they have flight times many times that of a helicopter. Meaning constant round the clock surveillance and with no warning like on a helicopter.

Just because you have nothing to hide does not mean it is a good thing. removal of freedom is not a good idea and a dodgy slope, for what? all that freedom removed for what benefit? it's another step just like the terrorist laws.
 
To me, if you're in public, it's just that, public. If I want privacy, that's what I have a home for. Besides, newspaper spin on topics like this is just laughable.
 
Oh dear! This thread is still going?

You know what I find more worrying that CCTV, big brother, 1984 references and references to lowrider007 ass?

That people are believing everything what they read in the paper! Seriously, you've been given a badly written, rehashed story from 2007, with a few extra mentions of 'terror' and you believe it!!

Compare that story to the one Lewis Page (not my favourite writer) published on the Register in 2007...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/08/bae_mouse_click_robot_spy_dover_over/

Seem the same don't you think?

BAE also have it on their website from 2007....

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_107107111943.html

And yet more....

http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/PANConferences07.pdf

As already widely reported elsewhere in the media
there are protocols in place that centre around seeing
the realisation of some operational go ahead circa
2012 - nothing to do with the London UK Olympics,
just a coincidence in dating.
Click to expand...

So, this 'document' the Guardian have that they got through the Freedom of Information contains items already reported from 2007. Wow, what a scoop. You may also notice they haven't published the document, why not? It's under FOI so there isn't anything stopping them. Why no quotes from it longer than five or so words?

This is just an example of really bad reporting on a slow news day. Don't fall for it.

The UAVs if ever get funded (strong rumours the MoD's UAV program with BAE will get cut in the defence review) they will only cover our ports and the coast line (the duties usually carried out by the Coast Guard / SAR and Nimrod MR2 before they all got cut back).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom