
US Department of Homeland Security looking for (more than) a few good drones - godbolev
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/us-department-homeland-security-looking-more-few-good-drones
======
DanielBMarkham
I know this is going to sound like hyperbole, and I apologize, but I believe
that the networked computer is a bigger danger to mankind than nuclear
weapons. We are completely destroying the innate quality that we've had as
humans since we came out of the trees - anonymity and privacy.

I'm not saying technology is bad; I'm no Luddite. But we are entering places
in our societal structures that we've never been before even in the strictest
police states. Maybe it's grumpy old guy day again, but I do not feel that
this is going to turn out well over the long run.

ADD: Of all the things I thought 20 years ago that I might be concerned about
in the 2010s, "swarms of flying robots able to watch and record my every move"
was not one of them. The future is not only stranger than you imagine; it is
stranger than you _can_ imagine. And that's just robotic drone surveillance.
There's a dozen other networked technology devices that are much more
worrying.

~~~
yequalsx
We've always been social creatures and when we came out of the trees did we
really have anonymity and privacy? Village life has been the norm for most of
your history and I believe that anonymity and privacy aren't the norm in
village life. Am I wrong?

It seems to me that only since mass urbanization has there been anonymity and
privacy and we begin to revert back to the historical mean. Although at a much
grander scale. Is it the scale that is the danger? In the past one could leave
the village for another location (in theory) and get away from stigma. Maybe
now it is much harder.

Of course now there is much more information and many more instances of
instant fame. Perhaps the noise will be anonymize us except to the powers that
be.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
There's another thread that makes the same case: these things are not old.

As far as I know, we come from clan-like nomads, varying between a alpha-male-
harem model with young males on the outskirts and a pair-bonding model with
young males striking out on their own. That means that those in your clan have
generally had a very close and intimate view of your activities -- and you of
theirs. But also that 1) clans were by necessity small, and 2) you always had
the ability to walk away. Village life gets a little more complicated, but
there is a span of control issue at work: you simply can only be concerned
with so many things at the same time. People who are not physically near you
have privacy from your oversight. In fact, much of human social behavior is
about the trading of information about other people, their thoughts and
behaviors. The trust engendered forms alliances and creates a communal
atmosphere.

The state of nature is that I can choose to talk away from any group of
humans. Once I am several hundred meters away, whatever I am doing is
anonymous and private. I can choose to share something with one or a few
special friends. I can choose not to share something with somebody who has
offended me. And so on.

But now it's possible to be concerned with millions of things at the same
time. Computers can watch millions very closely. You can't walk away from a
group of humans and have privacy and anonymity. The system will track you.
Your call phone, for instance, has capabilities that make it more or less
something akin to a cross between a surveillance device and a wildlife
tracking tag. The natural limits that draconian states have over their people
are melting away. That's completely new.

So yes, we've always been social creatures, but society has been defined by
the physical and natural limits on cognition and communication. What we're
turning into is not just a more social version of man. It's something
completely different. As the other commenter pointed out, it's really more
savage than social.

~~~
yequalsx
I understood your first comment to be in relation to governmental spying and
neighbors (the whole world) spying. I agree the former is a serious problem
and will likely have radical consequences but the latter I think won't be a
problem. There is too much noise for you and I to keep on top of all the
latest rumors and whatnot. I can retain anonymity and privacy from the average
person but not from the government or corporations.

------
ck2
That's federal level. State and local police are already shopping and some are
already working with local military bases to use theirs.

All warrantless, no oversight. The mission creep is going to be scary.

They'll have to find a way to justify their incredible expense for the 99% of
time they would be idle, so imagine the equal to speeding ticket quotas that
will emerge.

------
telecuda
I was at a law enforcement show this week and drones were the big new thing.
Most were either quadcopters with GoPros while others looked like mini
helicopters with PTZ cameras strapped to them.

Better funded departments are starting to test them out, but the demand from
local police still isn't quite there. They require obtaining a special FAA
license and lots of training, which makes the sales cycles on drones long and
unattractive to vendors selling one at a time to local PDs.

Still though, their pitch is: "A helicopter flight cost is $450/hr. A drone is
$14." Saving PDs the cost of flying a drone to/over an accident scene is more
the draw than snooping into buildings.

------
kmfrk
There are many perfectly good uses for drones, but we all know the regulatory
oversight will be completely negligent and insufficient.

It's in light of that that I have to wonder whether drones should just be
vilified altogther.

~~~
bdunbar
_I have to wonder whether drones should just be vilified altogther._

Good question. I can see uses for drones. I know guys who will personally
benefit from automation like this.

I say take a hard stand against them: no drones, period.

Because 'give them an inch they'll take a mile' is why.

------
vectorbunny
Excellent podcast on the ethics of automated systems deployed by military,
LEOs, etc. featuring Noel Sharkey:

<http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/6600>

From the teaser:

"Noel Sharkey is Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, and
Professor of Public Engagement at the University of Sheffield. He holds a
Doctorate in Experimental Psychology and a Doctorate of Science, and lectures
extensively across academic disciplines, including engineering, philosophy,
psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, artificial intelligence and
computer science. In addition to having published well over a hundred academic
articles and books, Sharkey has worked closely with policy makers and the
military to create awareness about the limitations of AI and the dangers of
automated warfare."

------
sturadnidge
I was watching a documentary the other day about border smuggling - surely
it's only a matter of time before drones are used for that, in which case what
hope has domestic law enforcement got if they don't go down the same path.

~~~
revelation
Smugglers have used submarines. Law enforcement has already "no hope", and
that is entirely by design. If you want LE and criminals to be equal then you
end up in a country run by criminals.

~~~
mmagin
No, there is more than the technical advantage held by police which factors
into this. There is also the extent to which the mass of people tend to
believe whether it is better to do things in a law-abiding manner or whether
legal authority is completely disrespectable and not worth obeying.

------
fourmii
Speaking of drones:

[http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/drone-
fi...](http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/drone-finds-dummy-
bushwalker-in-worldfirst-20121005-273lv.html)

------
secure
Obligatory book recommendation: [http://www.amazon.de/Kill-Decision-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/05259526...](http://www.amazon.de/Kill-Decision-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0525952616)

------
ktizo
The scariest thing about drones is that if both sides have drones, the winning
strategy would seem to be in having millions of cheap drones directed by the
sort of algorithms currently used in high frequency trading. Putting humans in
the decision making loop for all of those just slows them down and vastly
increases the expense and manpower requirements.

~~~
starpilot
There's very, very little work going on with AI in drones. We're not there
yet. We're still working on getting the sensors right and dealing with
datalinks. The vast majority are remotely piloted, some are remotely directed
(point and click to location, the drone maneuvers to get there), all are
controlled by humans.

This "robot drone aircraft freakout" sounds as silly to me as an aerospace
engineer as worries about malicious hackers shutting down the US power grid
sound to you.

~~~
rdl
I'm fairly knowledgeable about computer security and slightly to somewhat
about power distribution, and for a well-resourced hacker ($10-50mm), shutting
down the US power grid actually wouldn't be terribly difficult.

Leaving aside any attacks on the control system, the actual physical
infrastructure is quite vulnerable. It operates close to breakdown on many
days anyway, so it would just take the loss of some critical lines and maybe
substations to cause (if lucky) widespread controlled blackouts and load
shedding, or if unlucky, uncontrolled massive blackouts.

Since 9/11 they've fortified certain pieces (in the late 1990s, a 3 guys with
crowbars and pistols could have broken into major grid operations centers and
shut them down), but a lot of it is still fairly vulnerable.

~~~
DanBC
The UK experienced chaos when a small group of farmers and lorry drivers
blocked oil refineries.

([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom))

Some aspects of security are purely reactive (One man with a shoe bomb? All
passengers now remove their shoes. One man with an underwear bomb? All
passengers now go through millimetre wave scanners) and so this vulnerability
has been fixed. Other protests were much less successful.

------
ktizo
UK already has these for police. The Merseyside Police managed to ditch one of
theirs into a lake. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-15520279>

~~~
eckyptang
That does it. I'm defending my airspace with anti-drone drones (until they are
illegal).

~~~
dhughes
As soon as I saw the Parrot AR Drone I imagined putting a small stripped down
pellet gun on it.

I bet AR Drone will mysteriously become illegal soon.

~~~
ktizo
Technically, it already is for outdoor use in the UK, unless the person flying
it is not the person looking at the first person view, as the pilot has to
keep visual contact with the aircraft. Also if you use one for anything
commercial you are required to hold a civil pilots licence.

<http://www.buzzflyer.co.uk/aerial-photo-uav-fpv-law.asp>

