Loss of Privacy

Who could have seen this coming? (/sarcasm)

Have you seen the Capitol Hill drone pilot? You’ve read concerns about Seattle Police using drones for surveillance but a resident of the Miller Park area around 19th and Thomas tells CHS she is concerned about a fellow citizen employing a drone near her home:

This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield.  I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day.  After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away.  My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home.  The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows.  He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses.  He purported to be doing “research”.  We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom.

The woman tells us she called police but they decided not to show up when the man left. She wonders if anybody else has encountered this Capitol Hill drone pilot.

Source.

The AP has released an Al Qaeda document, which details how one can avoid drone strikes. Their list includes the following:

1 – It is possible to know the intention and the mission of the drone by using the Russian-made “sky grabber” device to infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The device is available in the market for $2,595 and the one who operates it should be a computer-know-how.

2 – Using devices that broadcast frequencies or pack of frequencies to disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone. The Mujahideen have had successful experiments using the Russian-made “Racal.”

3 – Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building.

5 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole.

6 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the NATO missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices.

7 – Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters.

10 – To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes.

11 – To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees.

12 – Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts.

14 – To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits.

16 – To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits.

18 – Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy.

19 – When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone.

20 – Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering.

21 – In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires.

22 – As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him.

Many of their tactics are tried and true ways of avoiding detection. Number seven is of particular importance. If your headquarters keeps moving, it will be difficult to track all the leaders down.

Source.

Abby Martin takes a look at a terrifying new ad by General Dynamics on the future of MAVs, mini drones capable of eavesdropping and discrete assassinations.

Source.

While the government insists that they have no plans to carry out drone strikes within the borders of the United States, their actions speak otherwise.

…despite that pledge, there is every intention to expand the use of so-called mini-drones inside the U.S. Used mostly by local police and first responders, the Federal Aviation Administration has already granted 327 licenses, and it projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017.

“They would use them for specific missions such as finding  a lost person or a missing child that’s lost in the woods, or for monitoring traffic, or potentially for crowd control. In the meantime, the firefighting community would be interested in using these to fly them over a fire and identify hotspots.”

Notice how the “potential” for crowd control is tossed in the middle of finding lost children and helping in forest fires. They already plan on using them against the people, they just hope that no one will notice because everyone wants to find little lost Sally, don’t they?

There are many privacy issues with using mini-drones on unsuspecting Americans and the courts haven’t been in favor of ordinary citizens.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled that the police can look into your backyard even if you have a high fence, with no warrant. You have no 4th amendment protection there,” he said.

Although many people are signaling the privacy implications, the Department of Homeland Security has only just begun setting up a committee to study what impact there will be to the civil liberties and rights of American citizens.