Well UK, It must be fun living in a real life "V For Vandetta". Drones unleashed

[TimeLord]

By Daily Mail Reporter

That's British slang for "This is most likely not even based on facts".

As the comedian Russell Howard puts it, the average Daily Mail headline is:
"DON'T GO OUTSIDE! It's full of queers, blacks and crime! Oh, if only Diana were here."

Which shows exactly how seriously that paper should be taken.

I believe that was the Daily Express he said that for.

Infact after checking, it was.

Daily Mail was: "Asbos, muslims, speed cameras, speed cameras"

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

This "Source" of yours sounds as believable as the magazines they sell at checkouts which have headlines that read "Bigfoot a Mexican"


Now quit reading the Dailymail and start pouring hot glue into your ears, it's more productive.

Oh, and have a good day.

 

[Berethond]

Though if I did do it, everyone would probably think I'm one of those fathers for justice...

Which is why we never get superheroes, no one would believe that they're tryng to save the world.

I shall join you by cracking out my V mask too.

Where does one buy a Guy Fawkes mask, anyways?
I've been meaning to get one.

 

[jadias]

Given that there's next to nothing on what the new drones being considered are actually *like* then I find it unlikely that it'll be nearer a "predator" type and not a "remote controlled helicopter" type. The article I cited was from 2007, but it does mention it was an early (3 month long) test to see if that sort of thing was viable or not. It makes sense that 3 years on that idea has been refined, but is still similar in core principle.

The claims that we're modifying the American one, so we couldn't export are...dodgy at best. As far as I have read (and I've done a bit of looking on this subject) the American ones are military-only, that then would require extensive modification for civilian usage, and as such is only *one option of several* that is being considered. The UK could sell "civilian models" - or even come up with their own design that doesn't involve a large amount of foreign import ones a prototype has been established.

I've read a bunch of sources' versions of the same story now, and a few have gone into more detail about the drones. As much as I hate quoting from The Guardian because they're too left-wing for me, they are at least a fairly reliable source of information, and probably have the most informative article on this. I quote:

BAE drones are programmed to take off and land on their own, stay airborne for up to 15 hours and reach heights of 20,000ft, making them invisible from the ground.

Far more sophisticated than the remote-controlled rotor-blade robots that hover 50-metres above the ground - which police already use - BAE UAVs are programmed to undertake specific operations. They can, for example, deviate from a routine flightpath after encountering suspicious ­activity on the ground, or undertake numerous reconnaissance tasks simultaneously.

...

There are two models of BAE drone under consideration, neither of which has been licensed to fly in non-segregated airspace by the CAA. The Herti (High Endurance Rapid Technology Insertion) is a five-metre long aircraft that the Ministry of Defence deployed in Afghanistan for tests in 2007 and 2009.

CAA officials are sceptical that any Herti-type drone manufacturer can develop the technology to make them airworthy for the UK before 2015 at the earliest. However the South Coast Partnership has set its sights on another BAE prototype drone, the GA22 airship, developed by Lindstrand Technologies which would be subject to different regulations. BAE and Kent police believe the 22-metre long airship could be certified for civilian use by 2012.

Military drones have been used extensively by the US to assist reconnaissance and airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So there you go - one of the two models under consideration IS the same as the ones being used in military operations abroad, which are significantly different from the ones in the 2007 article you quoted. They WOULD have to be modified - to make them able to deal with other air traffic in the vicinity - but this is entirely possible in a short time frame. The other one mentioned in the article sounds like it'd be a stop-gap measure until the Herti drones came into service, between about 2012 and 2015.

Also I should admit that I was wrong in thinking that they were American-made - BAE Systems are a UK company. That said, their military drone(s) is/are similar to American projects like the Predator, and even if we do export them, my point stands - is that tiny, tiny amount of generated revenue worth the loss of our privacy and liberties?

And it's not like it's a reduction in freedoms anyway. The drones would just replace a common, time-consuming job that police helicopters currently fulfil at a far greater cost to the taxpayer - and this kind of surveillance is only common over large cities. It's not like there will be a UK-wide network of 24/7 drones watching every inch, it's just a little extra security for the cities that is *already being done* just done on a far cheaper level.

Quoting from The Guardian once again...

Previously, Kent police has said the drone scheme was intended for use over the English Channel to monitor shipping and detect immigrants crossing from France. However, the documents suggest the maritime focus was, at least in part, a public relations strategy designed to minimise civil liberty concerns.

"There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a 'good news' story to the public rather than more 'big brother'," a minute from the one of the earliest meetings, in July 2007, states.

Behind closed doors, the scope for UAVs has expanded significantly. Working with various policing organisations as well as the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, BAE and Kent police have drawn up wider lists of potential uses.

One document lists "[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving" as future tasks for police drones, while another states the aircraft could be used for road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.

Under a section entitled "Other routine tasks (Local Councils) ? surveillance", another document states the drones could be used to combat "fly-posting, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, abnormal loads, waste management".

If they were being used to fight drug and gang crime, I wouldn't have a problem with them. But if they are deployed under some shitty mandate to curtail pathetic, minor crimes like fly-tipping, they are going to be a lot more prevalent than you think. I have a problem with this on a few levels:

1 - Why not use them for tasks which will actually make the community genuinely safer, such as gand and drug crime, rather than keeping an eye on waste management?

2 - If there are lots of them up there to keep an eye on such minor crimes, then they ARE going to be keeping an eye on you more than you think...

3 - Why do the government treat us like idiots and try to validate their decision by effectively lying? Why do they feel the need to slip them into service under our noses? "Oh yeah, we can use them to monitor shipping lanes" is total BS when the craft themselves will not function in those conditions. It's similar to stealth taxation, I guess, and this government seems to love doing that sort of thing.

 

[Superbeast]

Mega-snip

Ok I retract my earlier statements.

I had just heard that they were going to be used for shipping (currently done with Coastguard helicopters) and monitoring places like London (currently done with Police helicopters).

Sneaking it in like that is very...like this government.

Goddamn, bring on the elections!

 

[Jaythulhu]

Oh blah. V was written about Margaret Thatcher's England, which in case you hadn't noticed, was a long time ago now. 1984 doesn't fit with the current world situation either, as most of the people in the west are spineless, wishy-washy douchebags who prefer to look for things to get offended about so they can complain rather than getting on with their own lives. We're losing our freedoms because we choose to believe the easy lies and slogans thrown out by those in power, not because we're systematically being crushed by an oppressive regime.

 

[madmatt]

i was worried until i saw
"By Daily Mail Reporter"
most people in the uk know just how reliable this source is. Which is a good thing, because if it were true I would have a fit

It is true the telegraph times and beeb are all reporting it

super. PANIC EVERYONE!

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Though if I did do it, everyone would probably think I'm one of those fathers for justice...

Which is why we never get superheroes, no one would believe that they're tryng to save the world.

I shall join you by cracking out my V mask too.

Where does one buy a Guy Fawkes mask, anyways?
I've been meaning to get one.

I got mine from a UK Costumer retailer on eBay. Was about a tenner and arrived within a week.

 

[Iron Criterion]

I hope it isn't a lie. Cutting down on crime is always a good thing. I have nothing to hide as I don't commit crime!

That is the exact attitude that created the dystopia in Mirror's Edge!