Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PracticalTechnicality]

As many of you may know, UAVs have become a staple in targeted warfare.  Others of you may be familiar with projects such as URSULA, which concern themselves with monitoring and conservation efforts.  Thus far, the division has been fairly clear: civilian drones are passive elements in a system dominated by humans or animal in active roles, military drones have a dominant active role with human oversight.  There are many moral questions concerning military use of drones, but that is not what I would like to focus on in this particular thread.

Please refer to this article (more will be linked throughout to provide other points of view): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27902634

Allow me to introduce the 'Skunk' drone.  This drone is marketed as a deterrent, designed to deploy non-lethal weaponry at the behest of civilian authorities, such as private security firms and law enforcement officials.  Tear gas, ball bearings and other exotic rounds are all able to be launched from the multiple paintball-gun style weapons under-slung on this Octocopter frame (8 prop hovering UAV).  It has an operational life of approximately 20 minutes (more with sufficiently advanced batteries) and a considerable distance may be maintained between the operator and the flash point it is being deployed to, should local infrastructure be integrated into communication elements of its remote control. 

It is a logical development of a technology that is available in a much reduced form to you and I for around the $200 mark for the lowest-priced platforms (sans weaponry of course).  But it also represents a blurring of the lines.  It is an active agent under the control of civilian authority.  It may cause harm, non-lethal though it may be, to individuals for a variety of reasons.  Some may be deployed in 'the public interest', dispersing violent riots and mobs.  Others could use it to suppress protests or quell unrest in a distributed manner that would cause historians to search for a term to supplant 'industrial scale' as a representation of scope of capability. 

Regulation of unmanned aircraft is a mess, at the global scale.  Cooperation exists between the FAA, CAA and industrial representation is provided by IARIA among others.  But these groups concern themselves with the use of avionics technology in the most literal terms; how, where and what you can fly.  What you can do with drones is currently a subject of much debate, and while many authorities seek restraint, the possibility remains that the inevitable day when civilian sector drones cross over into the realm of executive actions in the field could be tomorrow. 

(Humanitarian interests may be served well by the use of UAVs, but every silver lining has a cloud: http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-58/the-promise-and-perils-of-disaster-drones)

(Some problems seem to only benefit from the use of UAVs, such as the Ash die-back and black-grass issues monitored by URSULA http://www.ursula-agriculture.com/about/research/)

Pertinent questions include; Who is responsible for secondary-source injuries that are precipitated by the deployment of devices such as the Skunk (such as being trampled by a fleeing crowd)?  Which authorities are such devices restricted to?  Is it theoretically possible that use of such systems in home-defense could be permissible in some nations (assuming non-lethal payload)?  And, in my opinion most importantly, will the UN and other humanitarian bodies monitor and speak out should the potential scope of these devices be fully realised in breach of human rights?

(The InfoSec group have identified some of the social and civil problems UAVs may face, even in their role as passive agents in law enforcement http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/privacy-security-issues-usage-civil-drones/)

Drone technology has a great many benefits it can offer us, performing tasks deemed too dull, dirty or dangerous for we human beings to perform well at.  Distributed control of autonomous drones takes this a step further, again to our benefit on many fields, as such units may complete jobs that would lead to crippling exhaustion or boredom in human elements, while freeing said human elements to perform their specialist activities when and where they are needed most. 

Imagine an earthquake afflicted city, some residential zones in chaos, with volunteers sometimes scrabbling at collapsed buildings in the directionless but valiant hope of finding individuals trapped within.  Correct application of unmanned craft would allow for site profiling, deployment of temporary wireless infrastructure, maintenance of cellular mobile communication and collaboration with canine and human (and even rodent) elements to target rescue efforts in a manner that maximises the use of priceless human specialists (medical, law enforcement, civil engineer and volunteer alike).  But note that in this scenario, drone use is passive.  Paramedics and doctors take responsibility for people in their care.  Field engineers take responsibility for any guarantees of stability made for structures erected to assist removal of inured individuals from ruins.  Should active drones, such as mine disposal drones, be used in such hazardous environments, they are closely (as in, on location) monitored by human beings. 

(Unmanned Skunk Drones are already being shipped to break up miner's strikes in South Africa: http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/17/5819564/skunk-drone-shoots-crowds-with-pepper-spray-paintballs)

We are heading towards a promising future in which our unmanned tools can help us to be where we are needed most and apply our skills in a manner than increases the chances of victims of tragedy being in the hands of refreshed, alert specialists.  Remote control is becoming a relic, autonomous systems that can interpret abstract commands and broadly described missions are rising in this particular field. 

I admit to being an optimist in this field.  I love the work being performed in this sector and the amount of visionary, humanitarian individuals putting their expertise and investment into this domain is heartening to see.  But instead of focusing on the false-flags of Terminator/Matrix style as the opposite extreme, it is vital that we recognise that the threat posed by our drones is posed only by what we instruct them to do and how we let them allow us to govern one another.  The Skunk may have cases in which its use is beneficial.  Stopping an individual intent on murder and mayhem while keeping the authorities out of the line of fire could even have such platform attributed a 'heroic' status.  But is there a definitive line at which we can point and say 'no further than here'?  When does preventative, non-lethal intervention in human affairs become distributed suppression of opinion? 

I hope you've enjoyed the write up, and I will endeavor to post a bit more about this particular field of interest.  There's a lot of hope in this field, and a lot of good work being done.  The makers of Skunk probably have only the best interests for their product's use.  But while drones liberate us from tedium, health hazards or risk of mortality during search and rescue, we must ensure that we're not trading our liberties as human beings in return.  In the end, we cannot say 'we will not use UAVs, it'd be as sensible as banning screwdrivers because someone could use it as a lethal weapon.  We can only ask 'what will we do with them, and how will we limit abuse'. 

[Louella Dougans]

not entirely sure if it's relevant, but a couple years back, I remember seeing a thing, it was some kind of men's magazine thing, "lad's mag" sort of thing, but it was aimed at the "techie" kind of "lad", forget what publication or website it was, but anyway, it was about remote control aircraft, that were now being fitted with little cameras, thanks to cheap digital camera technology, and they were also wi-fi, so you could view the camera while the aircraft was in flight. "Your very own Predator UAV!" sort of thing.
And the article author was, in their own words, using it to "look for sunbathing hotties".

now then, R/C model aircraft aren't all that common, and they are usually fairly noticeable, so, unless you were asleep, you'd usually hear such an aircraft that was spying on you.

As drones and civilian agency drones become more common and less intrusive (electric vs petrol flight as an example - traditional petrol R/C model planes are loud, modern electroflight ones are whisper quiet ), then these leisure drones would also become more common and less observable.

so, you could be sunbathing, and you wouldn't notice a spying leisure drone, or wouldn't give it much thought, the novelty has worn off.

so when the novelty has worn off, then I think that's where the problems start becoming serious - people don't pay attention until it's too late, when a drone is being used for nefarious purposes.

there might be an issue there with what is a reasonable expectation of privacy - if your garden has an 8ft fence, and is not overlooked by any other buildings, then, if you were to sunbathe nude, you could only be observed by aircraft, and airliners generally are flying too high to look at you. The police helicopter would be able to see you, but wouldn't be looking for you, and wouldn't be taking pictures.
Drones would be in a position to negate that privacy, and as technology develops, would be able to do so without your knowledge.

What we don't need are tabloid newspaper scare stories about "paedo spy planes threatening kids safety".


Maybe a requirement on observability for drones ? so that their presence is noticeable ? I don't know :S

[PracticalTechnicality]

That lad's mag (I can fully believe it happened) is proposing a vile breach of privacy and quite illegal at least in the UK. 

Data Privacy and Protection acts allow for requests for personal imagery or data to be rendered to you in 'as timely a manner as is possible' (slowly).  The machinery behind these laws needs to be improved significantly.  Also I would not be against what you suggested in terms of a visibility requirement.  Police are required to declare themselves and upon arresting an individual, informing them of their rights.  Use of a drone to augment the extent and capability of authority does not mean the abandonment of the values such authorities have held until now. 

The laws and social conventions to regulate the use of these drones exist, but it seems many in the field are overlooking these elements and trying to reinvent, or conveniently ignore them.  By understanding our rights (especially in terms of use of personal imagery in profit bearing or judiciary proceedings) we can pressure our MPs wisely. 

The Skunk is an extreme example of a bleeding edge but real technology, but the questions it raises extend back to what you have mentioned: even a sordid little lads rag with teen dreams of using several hundred pounds of flying camera to get sneaky boob pics displays the seeds of abusive behaviour enacted from afar.  To be perfectly honest, the capabilities of the public worry me just as much as the potential uses/abuses by authorities, when it comes to challenging our social machinery to breaking point.