Or, at least, Big Eyes in the Sky will soon be watching Britons. So reports the Guardian. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones

Quotes:

Drones could be used for civilian surveillance in the UK as early as 2012. Source: BAE

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.

They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about SELLING THE SURVEILLANCE DATA TO PRIVATE COMPANIES. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year. (Capitalisation added)

End Quotes

How long before Australia has its own Big Eyes in the Sky?

And can Robocop be far away?

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_robot-border-guards-may-patrol-future-frontiers_1332750

Robo-soldiers are already here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/israel-building-robot-army-report/story-e6frf7jx-1225818514821

And here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-age-of-the-killer-robot-is-no-longer-a-scifi-fantasy-1875220.html

Quote:

In the dark, in the silence, in a blink, the age of the autonomous killer robot has arrived. It is happening. They are deployed. And – at their current rate of acceleration – they will become the dominant method of war for rich countries in the 21st century.

End Quote

Big Brother was with us in the eighties. Sufficient correllation of minor data give something almost as good as orwell's viewscreens.

What semi-autonomous drones do is give us the beginnings of Saberhagen's berserkers, or Harlan Ellison's anti-personnel robots. In both cases, the mechanical counter-force (the "second variety") is the hook in the trope.

If a drone is shot at, netted, damaged etc, what law beyond "destruction of public property" is violated? or will they be "special" like unmanned speed cameras (themselves in contrast to unmanned "driving like a [[profanity deleted]]" cameras which we desperately need).

If the same destruction is by a drone.....

Rusty

I forgot to mention cybernetic swearboxes on every street, semi-autonomously given the power to garnish the fine.

They could tazer free-speaking citizens who used terms like [[profanity deleted]] and [[strenuous profanity deleted]], preventing all and sundry from knowing that normal citizens use these words. Due to programming limitations, "swut" "turlindrome" and "belgium" and [[obscene biological impossibility removed]] might be missed for some time.

The children could thus be prevented from ever hearing or even suspecting that such bleeping nomenclature exists, and get a really evil [[recognised interspecies offensive adverb removed]] shock if they use it all unknowing.

[[disturbing-to-granny handle deleted]]

This is why we need a third political party to stop this nonsense.Farmers now are be contacted whilst out on their properties about vegetation clearance and are being spied on by satellites.Councils all over the planet are spying on the very people they are supposed to serve.Big brother is here under the guise of saving the planet and we must stop facism it now!

It is being supported by the big corporates as well as control freaks in our own Govts.

The important bits of that article are

<<The CAA is currently reluctant to license UAVs in normal airspace because of the risk of collisions with other aircraft>>

<<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.>>

Airspace and aircraft are very heavily regulated and controlled. The safety aspects of this are just enormous. How do the pilots? keep a watch for other planes if they are flying by remote control? Can they respond to air traffic control orders in a safe and expedient manner? What happens if one of them gets in the way of a 747 or other heavy aircraft? The air regulators will fight this. The airlines may even be against it if they think the police will be able to close airspace so they can spy on protesters and thus likely inconvenience the airlines and their passengers. And god help them if they ever actually caused a plane crash.

The comments in the Gaurdian showed not to many poms are keen on the idea either. The phrase "police state" kept coming up a lot.

Those the least in favor will be the ones with the most to hide.
They can look as much as they as far as i am concerned. I am guilty of nothing. Hoons and theives every where. Should be a good idea . These things will be in the favor of people that behave themselves, and to the detriment of those who infringe on other peoples freedom.

Arjay all you need is an anti Google umbrella.
I have one here it is rather large but you will not find me on google earth.
unless you look.
third fourth or fifth power, crime prevention never frightens me.
miss use of it? maybe, but please more street corner surveillance, more arrests for stabbing /bashing/purse snatching, and more power to police.

Oh God it's the end of freedom as we know it!

the sky is falling!
What's that whistling sound?

Ah yes Stevie blowing his Dog whistle again. How long have they had helicopters?
with infra red?
devices designed to listen using widow panes?
how about telephone tapping?
mini cameras?
mobile phone triangulation?
Video Cameras in the streets ?
secret services
We have fed police
How about mass communication monitoring at pine gap? etc.

In short unless you have reason to come to their attention where's the change.
About the Olympic games security? don't go there!
Leave it long enough and it'll screw up, human nature.

The real enemy is the US arrogance/insanity and DoD paranoia that feeds the military manufacturing complexes that see this extreme use of technology (arms race) as an blank cheque to make money regardless of the consequences.
Consider the mentality that marketed this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474268.stm...christian or what?

Nationals security take their lead from the above regardless of it's need or not. Simply marketing on an international scale or steroids. "Create the want then fill it" ignore or play down the need, no profit margin for the entrenched.

Monckton's egotesticle (deliberate)Madness party (MEMP)is just such marketing exercise.
We need to fix the problem not add more layers to create marketing opportunities.

Proof positive IMO of how Feral Capitalism is eating us out of house and home.

that post should be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474268.stm

Christian or what? was my comment, sorry

I don't have any problems with it either. They can look as far as they like for all I care.

Perhaps if more are caught illegally clearing, or, building a structure without a permit then maybe other will be deterred.

Bring it on, esspecially if it makes our homes and streets safer.

That's what the corporates and the Govt's they buy like to see,nice passive little serfs ready to do their bidding.You all need to be protected from the evil terrorists so give up all your rights now so you will feel safe.There is nothing better than feeling safe and subserviant.

We could institute Obama's new presidential order,Preventative Dentention,ie even if you are suspected of being a terrorist you can be detained indefinitely without trial or access to legal council.Now that is what I call safe.

Arjay,

You are right of course, a lot of Australians feel more comfortable with Big Brother looking over their shoulder to protect them.

A lot of Australians like 'strong' leadership too. You know, that sort of leadership that is more controlling and directive than strong, but hey, who is going to sit down and nut that one through when as we all know, many Australians don't really like to think for themselves either.

For myself, I can see no risk, imminent threat or crisis that requires all of the security cameras I go past daily and I have never seen any evidence of benefit either. Apart from the chain store cameras that catch school kids and bored housewives shoplifting, I sincerely doubt that any of the street cameras prevent crime or result in the conviction of criminals.

I support security initiatives where there are risks to be treated, but I would like to see proof of value for money in numbers. Talking about numbers, when will be there a full audit of the effectiveness and value for money of the security initiatives introduced by the Howard government? I recall the boom in the population of the ACT at the time and as far as I am aware Rudd didn't sack any of the security advisers and consultants, so what about some numbers please?

For a start, we could measure effectiveness by subtracting the rate of airborne hijackings from the previous rate. That will give the raw data for assessing domestic airport security, that and the costs involved.

Rusty

stevenlmeyer re: robosoldiers.

So science and technology is catching up with Hollywood. I think it's really interesting to think about all of this so thanks for the thread.

Where robosoldiers are concerned, my thoughts meandered over many possible scenarios, ending in wondering how warring factions (countries or whatever) would decide who had won and how the 'rules of war' would change. Would losing be decided as the side who had lost the most robosoldiers or the most civilians? How could civilians defend themselves. Install electromagnets around the place? Moats - would water be best? Electrified? Would just stairs do - how are these robos on stairs and the like?

But then if winning was about civilian losses, no need for robosoldiers at all - just send bombs. So why bother with robos at all.

I think that robosoldiers might not be all a bad idea, if we can prevent an OCP type organization (like a multinational) producing and owning them. If the idea of robosoldiers is coupled with environmental concerns, then we could skip building them altogether (use less metals; less mining, fuels etc) and just use video games!

Maybe our youngster-nerds who are so quick on the PS controller will be our warriors of the future. Our safety and security will probably be in their hands.

I still think that humanity's biggest threat exists in the corporate conglomerates that are right now redefining borders, economies and the very livelihood of whole populations. Break them back down into smaller units and much of the drive to control whole populations will dissipate.

Steven said: "...controversially deployed in Afghanistan..."

How was it controversial?.

Will it happen here?. Of course, they're already doing it with satellites, and how do you think Tim Holding was found in the bush that time?. Divine intervention?. I don't think so.

Will it happen in Brisbane?. Doubt it, they can't even cough up for a chopper for the coppers. Maybe a drone would be a cheaper option for them.

I only wish the SES had them for when I searched the scrub day after day.

Steven and others,
Robo soldiers,Give me a break have you seen the latest AI offerings?
Ground war machines are slow clunky and not battlefield viable nor are they likely to be so for some considerable time.

Technology/Capitalism are just tools it is the human use of these tools that is the problem. e.g. would you rail against a hammer? It can be used to build or to kill. Clearly, the evil is the human choice of its use.

The problem is with the major corporate entities is that they take on an existence of their own and their primary purpose to to maintain *their* existence and power and that of the individuals who benefit.

The military complexes, have so many employees and those who have gained personal power they can no longer simply produce products for the US security they need to maintain a level of paranoia both at home and with its clients to ensue it's continued growth.

Standard Conglomerates also need the DoD money to maintain their continual growth. Very few don't have military connections.
Part of this imperative it to use debatable means and morality to eliminate any opposition/obstacle that inhibits this thus it distorts supply and demand, national power and in a military context prolongs or exacerbates conflict.

In Israel's case if it stopped it belligerence now it would be forced to deal with its neighbours with equity and that means internal beneficiaries would lose power and benefits. They would be forced to pay the piper for past excessive obscenities.

StG

I did not say "controversially deployed". The Guardian piece said that. I was quoting.

To me there is nothing "controversial" about employing technology to protect your own soldiers. However whether it is really in America's best interests to continue fighting in Afghanistan is another matter.

UAVs, closer to the ground than satellites, can reveal greater real-time detail than satellites. They can also provide far more intensive surveillance. For every satellite you can put up tens of UAVs all covering a small area. UAVs can also follow individual suspects.

If satellites could do it all why would the police be interested in UAVs in the first place?

Pynchme

Glad you like the thread.

One object of deploying robots is to kill the other side's combatants without placing your own men at risk. Both the US and Israel use UAVs in this fashion. Hizbullah head Nasrallah rarely shows his face in public lest he share the fate of Hamas' Sheikh Yassin.

See:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ztdLZ7K66F8/Rhs5rgjHNaI/AAAAAAAAB0Q/h8zANSVblek/s400/Yassin%2BWheelchair.jpg

To the extent that war is about territory I guess the winner is whoever ends up controlling the land.

If two industrialised countries fight on the territory of a third country I guess the loser is the one who runs out of money first. Or who just decides the fight isn't worth it as I think the Americans will do in Afghanistan.

I have a feeling we shall soon get a taste of what robot warfare is like. My guess is that there will be a war between Israel and Hizbullah later this year and the Israelis will make some use of armed robotic vehicles.

Examinator

I doubt the first generation of combat robots will be entirely autonomous but that could come later.

Dear Steven,

I'm not against investing in the latest
technology - providing it is the best
available option, and value for money.

As with many innovations that have the
capability to achieve good results - this will
probably be adopted as we argue about it anyway.
As I've said before the only constant - is change.
It's probably just a matter of marketing this for
public consumption.

Violence is accelerating - and if this means that
it can be preventable - and is the safest and best
way of doing it - then who are we to argue with that?

What I was uneasy about was not the fact that "Big
Brother was watching," but to what end?

Foxy,

Is violence really accelerating or do political parties find it easier to manage us through fear?

By way of example, have a look at The Courier Mail today where the LNP opposition would have women locking themselves inside their houses in fear of all of the dangerous rapists abroad in the Sunshine State. It could easily be a story about terrifying terrorists and of course such stories regularly appear in the tabloid media.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26625474-952,00.html

Steven said: "If satellites could do it all why would the police be interested in UAVs in the first place?"

I didn't suggest they could, I just meant to suggest satellites are already being used for various things. Google Earth is one of the handiest things on the computer.

Why would they be interested?. Cost and control you'd assume. Great for tracking bad guys and they can stay in the air for days at a time.

Surveillance in Ipswich, Qld - (not sure where you are) - is well established and one of the greatest things to grace the area. There's a hundred+ cameras all over the streets. Greatest thing you could ask for. Every camera is permanently recording. Don't know of anyone who has a problem with it.

On first reading this does seem to be very Big Brother but on thinking about it a bit more, I tend to agree with Foxy.

Violence is worse than many years ago. Logically it has to be when our population is growing, with increasing street and gang violence. Just ask any police officer - in this instance it has nothing to do with political conspiracies.

The fact is there are not enough police officers to go around. What is the real difference between a spycam in the sky, we already have satellites anyway, and a few police patrolling the streets? It is just swapping physical eyes and ears with an electronic one.

If a spycam was to detect a break-in then police could respond quickly rather than always working after-the-fact, particularly in high risk areas.

The only problem is if these cams are misused for purposes other than crime prevention and as an excuse to reduce 'real' police on an already very stretched force on the ground. Another problem is that crims can be pretty savvy sometimes and it won't be long before these areas are identified as too risky and new targets are sought. I don't think these spycams would be able to canvass city-wide at any one time.

The proof will be in the results - they may prove to be a deterrent but whether crime will reduce significantly or just shift geograpically is another matter.

Steven, great spin my boy,
Robot (soldier) technology is so primitive its a joke.
Now AI is primitive. The idea of Asimov's positronic brain and the consequences there of are fanciful. Even the famous No5 weapon from "short circuit" was fanciful. Autonomous soldiers is nonsense Computer technology must be programed and "learns" within tediously limited parameters.

As for the territory argument regarding Israel that is an exceedingly superficial assessment. If it was either just for the right to exist or within the 1967 borders the argument would have been resolvable years ago. It about the expansionary attitudes and power lust(religious superiority pride pretending to be racial differential)) of a electorally disproportionate minority.

The equivalent or the "Moral Majority" (sic) in the USA, a bunch of religious superiority nutters.

Territory and existence are merely the "stalking horse" justifications. They have absolutely no notion of equity or fairness, latter day colonial bullies and invaders.

The US supports them solely through self interest and internal political reasons. Interested in fairness/equity ? no way. Untill we as a species can deal with that the conflict will continue.

Dear Cornflower,

I don't know the stats - but I was merely going
on the news reports dealing with knife attacks,
bashings at football games, night-clubs,
railway stations, trains, and so on.
I'm too busy at the moment
to do my usual research - so apologies ahead of time-
if I've got it wrong. It could be a bit of an
over-reaction on the part of the media - but
equally - if it wasn't happening - they'd have
nothing to report - right?

This is a must see short video by Aaron Russo film maker and businessman on this very topic.

Aaron became friends with one of the most powerful families on the planet,the Rockerfellers.Nicholas Rockerfeller confided in Aaron their most depraved intentions in order to recruit Aaron as a film maker for their cause.

see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

examinator,

I understand where you're coming from but I think you're underestimating computer tech on the battlescape. Yeah, "Terminators" aren't even on the horizon and people like Steven see "Robot" and that's all they think.

Autonomous weapons are something that will never happen in the traditional way of thinking but things like drone attack aircraft are functioning - (as you know I'm sure) - and also the QF4 Target Drones are being 'slaved' in an attempt to create fighter drones.

Check out the 'Big Dog Pack Horse' on YouTube. Comms and weapons development is storming ahead and with the advent of drone and digital tech there's aerial views of the battlescape networked between squads and senior command. On and on it goes.

As for Israel. "Palestine" only exists because it gives them somewhere to house the terrorists. What better to have walls than having them roaming free with your territory?.

StG

Just to set the record straight.

The combat robots I have in mind are NOT "terminators" with or without "positronic brains".

(Note to examinator: There never will be a "positronic brain". That just a bit of sf techno-babble. Nor alas will there be hyper-atomic motors capable of taking us to the stars)

I'm thinking more of a small extrapolation of the sorts of vehicles used in the DARPA Urban Challenge. If you want to watch a really cool video see below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xibwwNVLgg

I can envisage such vehicles operating mainly autonomously but with human intervention in a combat situation. More or less like the current generation of combat UAVs such as the predator and reaper.

An actual combat robot currently in use in Iraq is the Foster-Miller TALON. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yliThCy3RxY

Don't know if the TALON is actually shooting at people yet.

One of the most fascinating books I've ever read on the subject of combat robots is "Wired for War" by PW Singer. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Wired-War-Robotics-Revolution-Conflict/dp/1594201986

It's a must read for anyone seriously interested in the future of war. I strongly recommend it examinator.

StG

I seriously question Australia's need for the F-35 Lightning II. I would say that by 2025 the balance will have swung in favour of swarms of unmanned aircraft perhaps controlled from a futuristic AWACS "mother ship".

Apologies, I posted the wrong link.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULl63ERek0

As you can see back in 2007 the technology was still quite clumsy. It still is today. But it's a quantum leap ahead of what was possible five years perviously.

Robots today are probably where PCs were in 1990

The problem with autonomous combat robot stuff is being able to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.

Same as your TALON weapon thing. Might be alright for remote controlled sentry stuff but anyone with a club approaching from the side could disable that.

Here's a video I posted on YouTube about Metal Storm. Even with tech that - IMO - was VERY practical from a "robotic" sense they still have gone under. Things like area denial and actual 'smart' weapons are close at hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8nI_wpDk-s

That's the future of robotics. "2010" is so much ingrained in the social conscience that autonomous robot tech won't go past a car, let alone giving it a gun.

StG

I'm glad we've moved away from "Terminator". That was never what I had in mind.

You're thinking single robots – a lone TALON

I'm thinking swarms or networks. Maybe 50 – 100 advanced TALON's and a few UAV's overhead with advanced sensors. The single man with the club is detected and shot well in advance.

Telling the good guys from the bad guys is, as you say the problem. My guess is that a lot of civilians will die. That's already happening. In many cases – eg the attempted Christmas airliner bombing – civilians ARE the target. C'est la guerre.

One possibility is that approved "friendlies" would be equipped with RFIDs that the combat robots would recognise. It would be a sort of IFF (Identification – friend or foe) system.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

NB: I am NOT saying the technology is there yet. I'm saying we're headed in that direction. Combat robots will truly come into their own when swarms of them can be networked.

In the mean time, though, they are proving their worth with reconnaissance, bomb disposal and targeted killings.

In the civilian sphere, existing facial recognition software is primitive. Better systems are possible but require more computing power. I would say that within 5 years commercially available facial recognition software will outperform humans.

Another strategy is "gait analysis" – analysing the way people walk. Software that identifies people from their gait will soon be commercially available.

See eg:

http://www.chikatsu-lab.g.dendai.ac.jp/wgv4/presentation/04_03Anai.pdf

We are heading for a world in which the authorities can automate the control of our lives. Such power will be misused. It always is.

The more people you have in any given community the more controls and rules have to apply. Whether it is in a simple class size or the size of a city or country. It's a bit like traffic. The more cars, buses and trucks on the road the more traffic lights, roundabouts, parking restrictions, double white lines, stop signals there have to be. That's one reason people like living in the country, there is more freedom and less rules and regulation. Get used to it. As populations expand there will be more of them. It is beyond belief that nearly every town, city and country in the world is committed to expansion in a finite world. I feel that nature will eventually take its course, whether by Global climate change, food scarcity, war or disease, we will reap the error of our ways, but at least me might reduce a few regulations.

Rusty Catheter: "For a start, we could measure effectiveness by subtracting the rate of airborne hijackings from the previous rate. That will give the raw data for assessing domestic airport security, that and the costs involved."

So you think evidence based policy isn't being used, eh? If so, you are wrong. The ruling political party usually makes very heavy use of evidence based policy. Their prime metric is their popularity in polls before and after measures to crack down on terrorists are announced.

As for this thread, London has had many more camera's that people for years now. Maybe it is an artefact of the IRA campaign they suffered under for so long. I doubt a few more eye's in the sky will make much difference.

As far as I am aware all the surveillance hasn't changed attitudes much. Obviously it had no effect on the train bombers, and it hasn't effected crime rates. It does have some effect on prosecution rates, as in once the crime was committed it is easier to figure out who done it. So that is a good thing.

As far as privacy goes, you still have far more privacy in a camera infested city than you do in a smaller country town where everybody knows everybody else's business. As a business owner in both small country towns and large cities, the speed and clean up rates of police in small cities, where it is likely the police knew all residents by name, was just extraordinary. Literally 100%, even if the perp came from a nearby small town. They didn't just know your name. They knew where you lived, the car you drive, where you were on any particular day, and who your friends and accomplices are, how much your earn, who you bank with, what your major assets are, what chronic diseases you suffer, and your favourite recreational drugs.

So when it comes to surveillance, the modern police state still has nothing on country cop. We in large cities live in a privacy paradise compared to our brethren in small towns.

rstuart, your points don't make a lot of sense,:

(rehearsing the set piece)

*How* many hijackings of *Australian* domestic flights prior to (say) 2000? and after?

*How* many of international flights originating in *Australia*?

Yep. *Evidence*. Carry on. you *are* fascinating.

How many trains bombed here? Buses? The only building I know of that disappeared in the night was merely iconic.

Some bloke committed a crime in another town, you're unconnected, so we're searching your house. Why here? What evidence?

I suppose some "governments" need this. We aren't (yet) one of them.

The trigger for all this was preventable with a substantial, lockable, internal hatch to the cockpit. That might have been an "expense" to the airline. Businesses don't need "regulation", citizens, the stuff that constitutes and defines the nation, do. right.
The sept11th hijackers wouldn't get past the 4x4m vestibule of the lab complex I used to work in, for reasons more to do with subject privacy than the hundreds (thousands?) of kilos of dangerous stuff in there. lab/cockpit/operating theatre: all casuals turned away.
QED.

next bit:
speaking of privacy: I grew up in a country town of approx 5000. Yep, everybody knew everybody, and gossips knew lots *about* everybody. A lot of people also made a point of *not* being nosy too. The carpet layer *doesn't* tell people what he saw in x's house, the printer *doesn't* tell how many chequebooks he overprints for local business Y, the meter reader reads it quickly and gets out. The privacy *accorded* is much greater than than the minimum possible. In a city, anonymity is greater, but any available datum is not accorded the same privacy.

All camera evidence is available to police, all transactions, go card touches, RFID's in lab/processworker/you-name-it corpirate uniforms and PPE, serials of tokens/coupons/cash issued/used, cameras on roads and bottlenecks can record every plate. No discretion, no warrant.

My position is that this *data* not be made available. A perfunctory reason might give access, thereby making it *potentially* but not bindingly evidence.

Rusty

To continue:

The whole point is the same as science. We *could* collect all data and just be confused as to our topic.

We *really* need a hypothesis that is supported by current data before justifying looking for the crucial bit more.

Similarly, all insignificant data should enjoy protection until some detective has a hypothesis thAt is reafonable to the warrant issuer.

see the difference?

Back to the robotic police:
The [[expletive deleted]] cybernetic swear box is too easily here. Dragon(tm) Naturally speaking(tm) could identify multiligual swear words and use microphone triangulation to identify the miscreant. oh, and (yet) another camera.

If a tree swears in the forest (or gets busted 200m from home after a night at the pub), a robot will hear... and completely fail to have discreton as to circumstances, background, current social events, state of sobriety, local norms etcetera. *that* is the difference between robots (and increasingly, modern police) and the country police we all remember wistfully.

Rusty

stevenlmeyer wrote:
"Big Eyes in the Sky will soon be watching Britons"

Yeah, your typical government reaction to an ill society. Attack the symptoms rather than the disease. Like that's ever worked?

When will people wake up and realize that until we get rid of the core problem, (our system of governments) all the bandaids in the universe aren't going to fix anything!

Steven, StG.
Sorry to take so long responding other issues including the potential hacking scare from GY with his sign on 'ad'.

I've watched all your site posts, thanks for that. I've seen most of them before and frankly they are toys for boys. Grown up robotic wars Grant Imohara's first love. They won't make future wars safer only meaner less discriminative.

The vehicles are still dependent on human intervention and as such just as vulnerable to the limitations of the sensors. Robotic solutions require several sensors operating in concert take one out and you have expensive junk pile not viable military 'asset', What man makes man breaks.

Add to that the further the operator is from the the action the greater the desensitised the controller is to with bystanders, "collateral damage". (Well known psychological fact) however the deeper the psychological damage to both the controller and the unintended victims. The net result will be greater alienation and greater the 'collateral damage' will lead to an escalation in asymmetric warfare and the greater the risk of terrorism. It has been argued that all that changes is the potential victims from combatants to non combatants. Any war time 'battle' advantage will limited when balanced against the inevitable response.

No one has challenged my marketing motivation why? perhaps someone can show it as wrong.
Again Steven et al. Nothing is ever that simple least of all wars of dominance. There are two viable solutions to war, pride, religion, emotions, aside total inhalation of one side or real negotiation.
In the Israel/Palestine issue the first is both unthinkable (all middle eastern people's or westerners). Limited actions only moves enlarges the battlefield, therefore the one left is meaningful negotiation...hopefully sooner than later

Rusty,

Whatever point you were trying to make with the first part of your post went right over my head. It looked like a jumble of unconnected sentences. Ditto for the bit about trees swearing in the forest. If you are trying to make a point you care about you are far better off making writing clearing your first priority. Witty and clever should be a distant second.

For what it is worth, I think we may be in agreement on the effectiveness of most airline security measures. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3359&page=0#79855

The middle bit made more sense to me. However, it makes an wrong assumption: that we can politically mandate how much data will be collected. In an age where everybody carries a camera and microphone connected to the internet, current erosion of privacy is inevitable. Data collection isn't being done by the government. Most of those cameras in London are in privately owned shops. Presumably they had done their own cost benefit analysis for putting them there. Thus your demands for the government doing one is way off the mark.

Similarly it is others than have already done their cost benefit analysis that are collecting the bulk of the data about you. Google knows your browsing habits so they can target ads, your mobile phone providers has the archive of every SMS you have sent and knows where you are at any point in time, your bank who knows what you buy, credit agencies that know your financial status. All this data is now connected to the internet, and if there is money to be made out of doing so it will be correlated and analysed. This is how the privacy erosion will happen. Sorry - wrong use of past tense. That is where it *is* happening.

stevenlmeyer's idea of the government putting eyes in the sky to monitor its citizens is frankly ludicrous. Worse, it is just a noisy distraction from where the real game is being played.

For those of you who are interested in the original topic, this short news story makes for interesting reading. The hilarious situation the police find themselves in aside, it shows how the drones will actually be used. They will be used as cheap replacements for manned helicopters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/15/police-drone-arrest-backfires

LOL Thanks rstuart.

Interesting post