Showing posts with label (UAVs). Show all posts
Showing posts with label (UAVs). Show all posts

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

From: The Guardian thru MCM

COMMENT - "Why do they hate us?" which  question I touched on in the first of my series, Drones, and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Sort of obvious, isn't it?  This series will link up all the points in the chains of causality.  Please send article above, and subsequent pieces, on to others. 

Drone contractors, those whose products are providing the leading edge of application for the model of continued oppression to be used against both people around the world and those here in the U.S., are providing essential technology, without which this primary, causal, terrorism, could not happen.

Drone strikes traumatize individuals, shock, and interfere with all parts of the lives of people in those places targeted.  They have also interfered with our lives, here, at least for those of us who pay attention.  

A perusal of Green Hills Software's website  reveals they supply essential software, which is the common element on which the use of drones depends.  Without its tiny brain and the guidance made affordable and reliable, a drone is a motionless chunk of parts. 

Therefore, providing social disincentives, for instance shunning, refusing them service in restaurants, returning their donations to local charities, and otherwise raising their visibility within the community where they lurk, is an appropriate strategy.  

Green Hills Software's corporate office, and management team, with the exception of John B. (Jack) Douglas III, is located at 30 W. Sola, Santa Barbara, CA.  Jack's address in Massachusetts is bogus.  His name is not even on the menu there where he is listed, also curiously, as 'corporate counsel.'

The articles which Mark Crispin Miller sends on are at MarkCrispinMiller.com


ARTICLE


 
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 May 2013 09.03 EDT


What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

Woolwich attack, suspect on street
A man appearing to be holding holding a knife following the Woolwich attack. Photograph: Pixel8000


(updated below)
Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country

MORE

Comment by Mark Crispin Miller, from email.

Drone admissions

In not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill - whose soon-to-be-released film "Dirty Wars" examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission, it "leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen". Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for "Dirty Wars", which I reviewed a few weeks ago here.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Government Tests Gun-Sensing Drones in Oklahoma

From:   Opposing Views

COMMENT -  Sad to state, the great state of Oklahoma has been struggling to eliminate drones from their skies and lives for some time now and meeting with less success than many areas because their vixenish, blond, governor is determined to keep those exciting machines coming, and coming, along with the cool cash which accompanies them.  

You would think the revelation in this article from Opposing Views would have had some impact, dampening ardor for these sleekly expensive machines of mass control and surveillance.  But no, they are still on fast forward in Oklahoma.  

Governor Mary Fallin fell in love with drones because of her close relationship with the Department of Homeland Security, by reports.   We will be tracing Mary's relationship with the world of drones and looking over the linkages to Green Hills Software.  Life holds many surprises.  

So, we are happy to introduce Mary to our audience, if you had not previously followed her political career. 


The U.S. government is testing drones that are a civil rights double whammy – not only can they spy on you from above, but they can also determine whether you’re carrying a gun.
The drone will be able to "distinguish between unarmed and armed (exposed) personnel." Citizens carrying around an assault rifle or a holster might send up a red flag, but people with concealed weapons will evade the drone’s gun-seeking camera.
The Oklahoma Training Center for Unmanned Systems, a unit of the University Multispectral Laboratories under Oklahoma State University and Anchor Dynamics, has been performing research with the new drone. They hope to eventually employ the drone to aid first responders and frontline homeland security professionals in search-and-rescue missions, radiological and chemical emergencies, wildfires and “to catch the bad guys.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s chief privacy official assured the public that the testing would not violate any privacy issues, but that may not do much to ease the concerns of gun rights and privacy advocates. Testing may be harmless, but what about the eventual application?
Attorney David Slane said: “The general application of helping people in a rescue situation or a lost child – great. But that doesn’t mean that we should be giving up our privacy rights.” Military consultant Toney Stricklin added, “We don’t want to do anything that infringes on an Oklahoman’s privacy because that would be infringing on our own privacy.” The DHS added that the program “is not linked to any intended procurement action, nor does it imply intent to initiate such action.”
It will likely be hard for gun rights advocates to accept these assurances. Gun rights, privacy and distrust of the government often fit together like three pees in a pod, so a drone that infringes on both of those rights while giving more power to the government is sure to ruffle some feathers.
Gun rights advocates may have to put their hopes in the Oklahoma courts because they are in the unique position of being able to address the privacy concerns of citizens. Their rulings – if they make any – could potentially shape domestic drone laws on a federal level.  MORE and VIDEO


Sunday, May 19, 2013

What does it take to expose Droners?


COMMENT -  Most people now believe, on the evidence, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are psychopathic, thus accounting for the highly unethical and ugly actions of the George W. Bush Administration. 

Dr. Hare estimates at any time there are around 20,000 active psychopaths with I. Q.'s over 180 within the United States.  That is a sobering thought.  Since these individuals work well in politics, where they can directly profit from psychopathic behavior, and also in the corporate world, as indicated below, you would expect the population of drone contractors to include a percentage of those who are disordered. 

 Please read the material below and participate in our poll at your right.  


 What will it take to expose the highly disordered among such drone contractors as Dan O'Dowd, represented above in a kilt, in recognition of Jack Douglas, his senior vice-president?


From:  FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin


The Corporate Psychopath
By Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Mary Ellen O’Toole, Ph.D.

Psychopathy is one of the most studied personality disorders. It consists of variations of 20 well-documented characteristics that form a unique human personality syndrome—the psychopath. Many of these traits are visible to those who interact with the psychopath who possess some or all of these characteristics. For some, superficial charm and grandiose sense of self make them likable on first meeting. Their ability to impress others with entertaining and captivating stories about their lives and accomplishments can result in instant rapport. They often make favorable, long-lasting first impressions. This personality disorder is a continuous variable, not a classification or distinct category, which means that not all corporate psychopaths exhibit the same behaviors.
Beneath the cleverly formed façade—typically created by psychopaths to influence their targets—is a darker side, which people eventually may suspect. They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win. Unlike professional athletes moved by a desire to improve performance and surpass their personal best, psychopaths are driven by what they perceive as their victims’ vulnerabilities. Little research exists on their inner psychological experiences; however, they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) research indicates that psychopaths are incapable of experiencing basic human emotions and feelings of guilt, remorse, or empathy.1 This emotional poverty often is visible in their shallow sentiment. They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people’s emotional responses. Some lack realistic long-term goals, although they can describe grandiose plans. The impulsive and irresponsible psychopath lives a parasitic and predatory lifestyle, seeking out and using other people, perhaps, for money, food, shelter, sex, power, and influence.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder traditionally assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).2 Often used interchangeably with psychopathy, the term sociopathy is obsolete and was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1968. Currently, there is no formal diagnosis of psychopathy in the DSM-Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR); however, it is being considered for the 2013 DSM-V list of personality disorders.
babiak-otoole-bylines.jpg
Façade

It is fascinating that psychopaths can survive and thrive in a corporate environment. Day-to-day interactions with coworkers, coupled with business policies and procedures, should make unmasking them easy, but this does not always hold true. Large companies’ command-and-control functions ought to make dealing with them simple and direct; however, this may not be the case.
Psychopathic manipulation usually begins by creating a mask, known as psychopathic fiction, in the minds of those targeted. In interpersonal situations, this façade shows the psychopath as the ideal friend, lover, and partner. These individuals excel at sizing up their prey. They appear to fulfill their victims’ psychological needs, much like the grooming behavior of molesters. Although they sometimes appear too good to be true, this persona typically is too grand to resist. They play into people’s basic desire to meet the right person—someone who values them for themselves, wants to have a close relationship, and is different from others who have disappointed them. Belief in the realism of this personality can lead the individual to form a psychopathic bond with the perpetrator on intellectual, emotional, and physical levels. At this point, the target is hooked and now has become a psychopathic victim.
Corporate psychopaths use the ability to hide their true selves in plain sight and display desirable personality traits to the business world. To do this, they maintain multiple masks at length. The façade they establish with coworkers and management is that of the ideal employee and future leader. This can prove effective, particularly in organizations experiencing turmoil and seeking a “knight in shining armor” to fix the company.
Con

How is it possible for psychopaths to fool business-savvy executives and employers? They often use conning skills during interviews to convince their hiring managers that they have the potential for promotion and the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do an outstanding job. Using their lying skills, they may create phony resumes and fictitious work experience to further their claims. They may manipulate others to act as references. Credentials, such as diplomas, performance awards, and trophies, often are fabricated.
Once inside the organization, corporate psychopaths capitalize on others’ expectations of a commendable employee. Coworkers and managers may misread superficial charm as charisma, a desirable leadership trait. A psychopath’s grandiose talk can resemble self-confidence, while subtle conning and manipulation often suggest influence and persuasion skills. Sometimes psychopaths’ thrill-seeking behavior and impulsivity are mistaken for high energy and enthusiasm, action orientation, and the ability to multitask. To the organization, these individuals’ irresponsibility may give the appearance of a risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit—highly prized in today’s fast-paced business environment. Lack of realistic goal setting combined with grandiose statements can be misinterpreted as visionary and strategic thinking ability; both are rare and sought after by senior management. An inability to feel emotions may be disguised as the capability to make tough decisions and stay calm in the heat of battle.
Damage

Evidence suggests that when participating in teams, corporate psychopaths’ behaviors can wreak havoc. In departments managed by psychopaths, their conduct decreases productivity and morale. These issues can have a severe impact on a company’s business performance.
There also is the risk for economic crimes to be committed. For the corporate executive and the criminal justice professional, the issue is the possibility of fraud. Today’s corporate psychopath may be highly educated—several with Ph.D., M.D., and J.D. degrees have been studied—and capable of circumventing financial controls and successfully passing corporate audits.
Investigation

Investigators should familiarize themselves with the typical traits and characteristics of psychopaths. They must understand the manipulation techniques used to create and manage the psychopathic bonds established with victim organizations. Their reputations, as judged by those in power with whom they have bonded, known as patrons, often provide added protection from closer investigation. As a result, the investigator may need to build a case with management for the use and broad application of more sophisticated techniques.

Psychopaths can be expert liars often immune to traditional deception-revealing techniques. Some practice avoiding detection in anticipation of being caught and interrogated. Therefore, investigators independently should corroborate any information provided by these individuals.3
Psychopaths often compartmentalize their behavior, enabling them to present themselves differently to various people. This can help them hide their manipulation and control over victims. Coworkers may have knowledge or suspicions about the psychopath’s actions that can be useful to the investigator. However, they either may fear repercussions or fall under the influence of the psychopathic bond. If investigators establish rapport and trust with coworkers, information that will make their work easier may be forthcoming. The difficulty comes when these associates are persons of interest. Fortunately, some companies have hotlines for employees to report coworker fraud and other complaints. This information provides an invaluable source of leads.
Corporate psychopaths with exceptional verbal skills make crafty interviewees. This ability provides an opportunity embraced by many of them to fool law enforcement officers. In these cases, investigators should proceed with caution.4 Specific interview strategies should focus on exposing psychopaths’ vulnerabilities. Possession of a sense of superiority and lack of empathy can enable them to boast about the brilliance of their latest fraud scheme. They often believe that only someone equal in intelligence to them could understand their actions. Strategies specifically designed to elicit such boasting can result in a wealth of information for the investigator.
Corporate psychopaths are successful because they single out and isolate their targets. They sometimes manipulate several victims at the same time. Investigators never should assume they are immune to a psychopath’s approach. One conversation may be enough for the bond to be established. Investigators must know themselves so that psychopaths’ attempts at bonding fail. It is valuable for investigators to allow psychopaths to believe they have established rapport with someone inside law enforcement.
Investigators must work as a team, communicate openly, and take all observations seriously. This is necessary for personal self-defense, proficient investigative work, and successful prosecution. Officers must take heed to avoid being impressed with a suspect’s credentials and success.
Occasionally, when psychopathic white-collar offenders are identified, they seek out the media and give interviews. They may believe their skills of persuasion are effective enough to convince the public that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted unjustly by law enforcement. To prevent serious problems with the investigation and prosecution, investigators must remain prepared for all possibilities.
Conclusion

Psychopathy, one of the most studied personality disorders, can cause numerous problems for investigators. Therefore, law enforcement officers must become familiar with psychopaths’ traits and characteristics, prevent psychopathic bonds from forming, corroborate information, and take all observations seriously. Investigators must know themselves, work together, communicate with one another openly, and be prepared to deal with the corporate psychopath.
Endnotes

1 Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) registers blood flow to functioning areas of the brain.
2 Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is an assessment tool. Psychopathy, as determined by the PCL-R, is indicated by an overall score of 30 or above out of a possible 40. Many point configurations could result in the overall score, determined by adding up the total points for each of the 20 individually listed traits.
3 Research on psychopathy and lie-detection equipment has yielded conflicting results and remains inconclusive.
4 Once established that a perpetrator truly is a psychopath, reviewing the videotaped interrogation can be a lesson in their subtle, yet sophisticated manipulation techniques. This is the same method used by psychopathy researchers.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Passenger drone: Unmanned plane takes maiden flight over UK skies

From:  RT 

COMMENT - What a great idea for Air Force One!  Install it today and let all the management teams for all the drone companies get it in their corporate jets.  And don't forget transport for all those alphabet agencies.  However, they are forbidden to fly over populated areas.  

Some problems solve themselves. 

Published time: May 13, 2013 19:32
Jetstream 31 - The Flying Testbed (Image from baesystems.com)
Jetstream 31 - The Flying Testbed (Image from baesystems.com)

Large civilian planes remotely operated by a controller on the ground could become a reality within just a few years, after British aerospace giant BAE conducted a successful overland UK flight of an unmanned prototype for the first time.
“I believe we are writing a new chapter in aviation history,” said Lambert Dopping-Hepenstal, director of the £62 million government-backed ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Assessment) program, which is developing the sophisticated sensors that allow the plane to respond to outside conditions without the help of human eyes on-board.
The Jetstream 31 – an expensive experimental project known as ‘The Flying Testbed’ that looks much like an ordinary 16-seater training plane – took off from Lancashire in northern England, and landed safely 500 miles away in Inverness in Scotland.
As a precaution, two pilots sat in the cockpit, while the entire flight was conducted by an operator back at base.
"The pilots were sitting there having a coffee. They did not have to do anything," said a BAE spokesman.
Jetstream (Image from baesystems.com)
Jetstream (Image from baesystems.com)

Flying a plane from the ground takes more than just building a remote control.
Using an automated visual detection system, the plane automatically steers away from dangerous weather formations as it sees them, while its antennae pick up signals from nearby aircraft to avoid them. The Jetstream 31 also scans the ground for potential safe landing zones in case of emergencies. In the past, the lack of “sense and avoid” technologies and other features that would ensure that drones do not cause danger to manned planes were seen as the key stumbling block for letting them into civilian skies.
Dopping-Hepenstal admitted that it was “early days”, but said these on-board innovations “will likely impact all of us in the next five, ten, 20 years as unmanned aircraft and associated technology develop and become a part of everyday life.”
UK’s air regulators have already given out permits for several hundred light drones to share airspace with manned planes. But in the future larger craft using the technologies piloted by ASTRAEA could be used for extended rescue, patrol or pursuit missions, where time would be lost by having to return to base to refuel and change pilots. Whether eventually passenger planes also become remotely operated, will depend on more than just engineering capability, but social attitudes.
"It's not just the technology, we're trying to think about the social impact of this and the ethical and legal things associated with it," said Dopping-Hepenstal.
“These latest trials help prove the technology we need to routinely operate unmanned aircraft in our airspace and also help the regulators develop the framework in which the aircraft can operate."
US air regulator FAA has insisted that drones be integrated into the civilian airspace by 2015, and the UK plans to do so by the end of the decade.

Homeland Security increasingly lending drones to local police

From:  The Washington Times 

COMMENT - The article illustrates the fact that military drones are already being used against civilians in the U. S.   No one involved in calling it in considered the fact such use violates the Constitution because none of them considers the document relevant to their choices.  Now, why is that?  Could it be it has ceased to referenced as limiting what actions they can legally take?   Looks like it. 
  And the same people are freely  spending tax money so hard up local law enforcement can have drones, despite concerns, about the cost, expressed by Congress.  They seem to have missed, during their search for policy, the fact there is an official policy. The Constitution,  forbids the use of military on U. S. soil.  States and counties, which have legal standing under the Constitution, should take note. 

There is a wild and free-with-our-money as they ignore the law feel about these agencies, which are, themselves, not provided for under the Constitution.  

This is a rogue government, armed by Green Hills Software, and friends.  


ARTICLE


By Kimberly Dvorak-Washington Guardian


Monday, December 10, 2012
Far from the battlefields of Afghanistan, a Predator drone was summoned into action last year to spy on a North Dakota farmer who allegedly refused to return a half dozen of his neighbor’s cows that had strayed onto his pastures.
The farmer had become engaged in a standoff with the Grand Forks police SWAT team and the sheriff’s department. So the local authorities decided to call on their friends at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy a multimillion dollar, unarmed drone to surveil the farmer and his family.

The little-noticed August 2011 incident at the Lakota, N.D., ranch, which ended peacefully, was a watershed moment for Americans: it was one of the first known times an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) owned by the U.S. government was used against civilians for local police work.

Since then, the Washington Guardian has confirmed, DHS and its Customs and Border Protection agency have deployed drones — originally bought to guard America’s borders — to assist local law enforcement and other federal agencies on several occasions.

The practice is raising questions inside and outside government about whether federal officials may be creating an ad-hoc, loan-a-drone program without formal rules for engagement, privacy protection or taxpayer reimbursements. The drones used by CPB can cost between $15 million and $34 million each to buy, and have hourly operational costs as well.

In addition, DHS recently began distributing $4 million in grants to help local law enforcement buy its own, smaller versions of drones, opening a new market for politically connected drone makers as the wars overseas shrink.

The double-barreled lending and purchasing have some concerned that federal taxpayers may be subsidizing the militarization of local police forces and creating new threats to average Americans’ privacy.

“We’ve seen bits and pieces of information on CBP’s Predator drones, but Americans deserve the full story,” said Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that studies privacy issues and has sought information on drone use in the United States. “Drones are a powerful surveillance tool that can be used to gather extensive data about you and your activities. The public needs to know more about how and why these Predator drones are being used to watch U.S. citizens.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), another privacy advocate which is pursuing litigation to force the disclosure of more information from DHS on drones, says it has found that the government has no official policies for how the drones can be used by local police, does not seek compensation from local law enforcement to recoup taxpayers’ expenses and claims it doesn’t keep records on how many times its drones have been deployed for local use.

CBP’s drone program is shrouded in secrecy and legal ambiguity. Despite a specific mission to protect the border from illegal immigration and drug smuggling, CBP continues to let other federal agencies and local law enforcement bureaus use (its drones) for unrelated purposes,” said Amie Stepanvich, Associate Litigation Counsel for EPIC.

Indeed, when the Washington Guardian inquired about how many times DHS or CPB lent drones to local authorities, officials responded they didn’t have a formal loan-a-drone program but did on occasion lend the UAVs to help local police. But they declined to provide an exact number or a list of localities.

“While CBP does not have a ‘loan a drone’ program, we do work with national and sometimes state and local agencies for assistance,” said Ian Phillips, a spokesman for Customs Border and Protection.

Such answers aren’t satisfying to members of Congress worried about the costs to taxpayers and the implications of letting machines built for war to potentially impact privacy inside the United States in the name of security.

“We should not run from our basic constitutional principles because we have fear. That’s the best way I know for us to lose liberty.  And you eventually give up your liberty if fear is your No. 1 guide,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an influential voice on the federal budget.

Local police departments, stretching from the Canadian border in the Midwest to the Mexican border in Texas, confirmed to the Washington Guardian they have summoned CPB drones to help in local police matters ranging from the service of arrest warrants to armed standoffs.

Local SWAT commanders, in fact, said DHS and CPB encouraged the use of the drones to give its unmanned pilots training opportunities. And they argue the collaborations and deployments have helped saved lives.

CBP reached out to us for training. We have developed a relationship with them, and we can call them when we feel we need their help,” explained Sgt. Bill Macki, the leader of the Grand Forks, N.D., SWAT team that summoned the drone back in August 2011 at the North Dakota ranch during the farmer standoff.

Macki said his department has asked to use CPB drones three times –inclement weather prevented one of those deployments — and he personally knows of other local departments in the Dakotas that have also used the unmanned aerial vehicles in the last year.

“The Predator drone helps us pull back and (gives us) the ability to control the perimeter and de-escalate the scene significantly,” Macki explained. “The (drones) have been a tremendous asset to our high-risk operations.”

An added bonus for law enforcement is that so far federal officials haven’t asked the local cops to repay the costs. “We have not been charged by CBP for the use of the Predator drone,” Macki said.

While ad hoc deployments continue, in May the Department of Homeland Security launched its “Air-based Technologies Program” to hand out grants to help underwrite local law enforcement purchases of their own drones, said John Appleby of DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s division.


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

US drone strikes in Pakistan must end: Nawaz Sharif

From:  Press TV

COMMENT -  Now, why would Nawaz Sharif object to having his nation's airspace violated and citizens bombed to smithereens?  Perhaps the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International should give him a stern talking to.  He is clearly attempting to interfere with their exciting business plan and development for population control.  

Fin out more about the founding partners for the (you have to admire their gall) tax free Foundation started to support the development of drones.   Founding Partners - Northrop Grumman, DS Solidworks and Insitu.

Here are the people we have to thank for the vigorous promotion of drone technology. 

AUVSI Executive Committee



Peter Bale, Chairman of the Board
           
John Lademan, Executive Vice Chairman
Northrop Grumman Naval & Marine Systems Division

Ralph Alderson, First Vice Chairman
L-3 Unmanned Systems

Joe Brannan, Treasurer
John Lambert, Immediate Past Chairman
Unmanned Systems Research and Consulting, LLC

AUVSI Directors



2012-2015 Directors
Jason Grabinsky ENMAX
Heather James UTC Aerospace Systems
H. Michelle Kalphat
Chad Partridge 2d3 Sensing
Steve Pennington
Dave Seagle


2011-2014 Directors
John Burke EADS North America
Tim Heely
Neil Hunter Babcock International Group
Mark Patterson Virgina Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Young University of Alabama


2010-2013 Directors
Grant Begley
Matt England CyPhy Works
Gene Fraser Northrop Grumman Corporation
Stephen Newton Discovery Air Innovations
David Place
Peter Smith Barton Vale Group
Nawaz, we hope your elections are more honest than those we have in the U. S. Good Luck. 


ARTICLE 

 
Pakistan
Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
Tue May 14, 2013 1:30AM GMT
19

156
17
Nawaz Sharif, poised to become Pakistan’s prime minister for a third time, has called on Washington to end its drone strikes inside the country.


Speaking to reporters from his family's estate outside the eastern city of Lahore on Monday, Sharif said the drone strikes pose a "challenge" to Pakistan’s national sovereignty, The Associated Press reported.

"Drones indeed are challenging our sovereignty. Of course we have taken this matter up very seriously. I think this is a very serious issue, and our concern must be understood properly," said Sharif.

Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N party appeared on course to secure a majority of seats in Pakistan's parliament and form the next government after claiming victory in Saturday's election.

Pakistan’s tribal regions are often attacked by US assassination drones, with Washington claiming that militants are the targets. However, casualty figures clearly indicate that civilians are the main victims.

The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism said in a report released in February that the United States has carried out more than 360 assassination drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, killing nearly 3,500 people.

The killing of Pakistani civilians, including women and children, has strained relations between Islamabad and Washington.  MORE

Monday, May 13, 2013

Alabama police look to drones to monitor college campus

From:  RT 

COMMENT -Let's as a question as we consider the article reposted from RT about using drones on campuses which throughout America are now struggling to survive financially.  

As cited, Alabama is passing legislation which would make the use of drones, as envisioned by the representative from Huntsville, illegal.  The technology is expensive.  Far cheaper to issue guns to students or faculty if concern over a mass killing event is real.  

The rhetoric used by the representative, Gary Maddux, the lead research director of Systems Management and Productions Center,sounds like he spent some quality time talking to a sales rep from a drone contractor, perhaps someone like Jack Douglas, a Senior Vice President of Green Hills Software, or even Craig Franklin or David Chandler.  

It is all about sales for them when other considerations should be paramount.  We were once people who understood our personal, individual obligation to do no harm.  

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International  has an About Us page, which I helpfully reproduced, in toto, below.  Reading it through takes only a moment.  

Do you notice anything here about ensuring the technology is not being used in ways which violates people's rights?  As they so eagerly, actually like rabbits stuck in breeding mode, roll their lower cost tools for fascist control out into the world, do they exhibit even a smidgin of concern about how their stock and trade is being used already?  

No, you don't.  An eerie silence fills that moral void.  There is also no mechanism for policing themselves because they see no point to any such consideration.  Empowered by the idea they, and their members, are invulnerable because of their so very corporate bulwarks and officious 'association,' they are filled with a sense of, how shall we say this?  Invulnerability, as if the specious concept of 'state sovereignty' also covered their sorry asses. So 'not true' it should send shivers up their kilts. 

If they took time to reference the original Nuremberg Trials, they would know  this.  

They clearly intend to provide the tools to survey us and police every part of our lives, while retaining the ability to blow inconvenient individuals, and those standing near them, to smithereens in the belief they are too, too, impervious to be touched. 

For them, more places to use drones is better because it burnishes their bottom line.  No other consideration matters.  Caught up in the oblivion of greed, they simply continue to feed. 

They live in a world where the assumption was people do not have to be told it is wrong to blow other people up.  We are learning this is not the case, in some part through understanding the neurobiology of the disordered. 

At the same time, their handy, dandy technology is now cojoined as an enforcement tool with the interest group with has proven, over and over again, their numbers include highly psychopathic individuals who think blowing up  innocent civilians is a good idea, as long as the money keeps flowing.  

Retribution can be slow, but it is none the less, sure. 


From the website of The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

About Us


The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International is the world's largest non-profit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. Serving more than 7,500 members from government organizations, industry and academia, AUVSI is committed to fostering, developing, and promoting unmanned systems and robotic technologies. AUVSI members support defense, civil and commercial sectors. 
Mission Statement
Advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community through education, advocacy and leadership.
Vision Statement
To improve humanity by enabling the global use of robotic technology in everyday lives.
AUVSI's Strategic Goals
  1. Inclusive Community – AUVSI will be an inclusive and accessible global organization encompassing the robotics/unmanned systems community.
  2. Global Focus – AUVSI will be the essential partner in the growth and reach of the global robotics/unmanned systems community.
  3. Education and Outreach - AUVSI will facilitate the expansion of robotics/unmanned systems knowledge and will promote educational opportunities.
  4. Knowledge Source – AUVSI will be the preferred robotics/unmanned systems knowledge source.
  5. Advocacy and Influence – There will be recognition of AUVSI by governments, industry and academia as a powerful advocate for robotics/unmanned systems.
  6. Member Services – AUVSI will provide value-added services to its current and potential membership.
as⋅so⋅ci⋅a⋅tion [uh-soh-see-ey-shuhn]
–noun

1. an organization of people with a common purpose and having a formal structure.
2. the act of associating or state of being associated.
3. friendship; companionship.
4. connection or combination.


And, finally,  our Article
 University of Alabama at Hunstville


Officials at an Alabama university have divulged a new plan to use unmanned aerial devices to help police monitor, and supposedly protect, students on campus.
Law enforcement officials unveiled the plan Wednesday at a press conference at the University of Alabama Huntsville, telling the Huntsville Times the aircraft would provide an “eye in the sky” that could help stop a mass shooting on campus. 
Gary Maddux, the lead research director of Systems Management and Productions Center, said that because the remote-controlled surveillance devices fly at a lower altitude than drones, they are totally unlike the controversial military aircraft. 
We just want to be able to make a difference and we want to make a difference quickly and come up with something to help law enforcement,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about – improving our response times so maybe we could mitigate the next tragedy that could occur.”
Maddux did not specify how the surveillance technology will prevent criminal activity or improve campus police response time. He did add, however, that the drones will “be incredibly useful and offer a wide range of possible applications.” 
The UAVs used over the University of Alabama Huntsville will be capable of using small spotlights or infrared cameras, along with video cameras. But being fitted with the extra technological perks doesn’t mean the police will use them, Maddux claimed. 
Obviously, we’re going to be very cognizant of any privacy issues for students,” he continued. “You can’t be flying your drone and look inside a dorm window. But you couldn’t do that if you were stationary or over in this building and had a line of sight to look in a dorm window. It’s the same basic rules.” 
He bristled when pressed on how the technology employed by the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) differs from the military drones that regularly complete secret bombing missions around the world. 
Obviously, the military has UAVs that fly longer, higher and farther,” he said. “Since we are research and the military has set of rules. If you are domestic and falling under what Federal Aviation Administration guidelines, you have to stay under 400 feet. As far as drone technology versus what we’re doing, I think it’s more syntax than anything.”
The plan seems to be in direct violation of a bill steadily making its way through the Alabama state legislature. The bill, proposed by a Huntsville lawmaker, would make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant in order to use a drone in order to prevent, in the words of one state senator, “unmanned drones just flying around looking for stuff.”

Sunday, May 5, 2013

New Business: Domestic Drone Detectors?





COMMENT -Announcement  over a drone warning system is clearly causing excitement throughout the Libertarian and Patriot Movement.  Which leads us to the stark fact Craig Franklin still attempts to position himself as Libertarian, donating money to the Libertarian National Committee while his long time friend, Michael Emerling Cloud can benefit thereby.  It is far better to get money to Cloud this way than to loan him money and not have it paid back.  

Franklin has also donated lavishly to Advocates for Self-Government, an organization which allows him to market his recordings.  These songs are used in continued attempts to entice normal women into a relationship which will allow him to abuse them sexually and financially.  Green Hills Software's  Vice President for Advanced Products Development has been a sexual predator all of his life and the company has covered for him as a matter of course.   

Because of his lack of success in this curious area of politics he instead today looks for women on Sugar Daddy sites.  

As we today know all too well, Libertarian politics draws in people with motives which are anything but freedom.  Eventually, people show you who they are.



Nicholas West Activist Post
The U.S. government remains fully committed to widening the use of domestic drones. Arguments for and against have run the gamut from privacy concerns to possible weaponization and killing of American citizens on U.S. soil.

However, as civil libertarians continue to do battle with a government dead-set on testing the U.S. Constitution, domestic drone use is taking other forms. A wide variety of public and private companies -- real estate agents, media outlets, or just drone enthusiasts -- are literally testing the boundaries of drone flight and potential for spying without detection.


 According to U.S News, John Franklin believes he has an answer for at least alerting people about a drone entering their personal space: enter the "DroneShield."
Franklin is an aerospace engineer based in Washington D.C. who has initiated his project through Indiegogo. His project already has exceeded his financing target after just a few days. According to the DroneShield project site, Franklin seeks to offer his creation for a retail price of $69 and perhaps even lower.
We hope that there will be enough interest to justify further development to reduce costs in future generations; we believe ultimately we could get the cost down to the $20-range at scale. Future plans could include moving to an open-source 'sourceforge' type development environment and teaming with 3rd party hardware makers.  We could also envision a smart-phone based platform for portable applications.

The device would utilize an open source database of drone sounds that would be identified through a connected Wi-Fi device that can interpret a drone's acoustic signature. Once a drone has been identified by the DroneShield mounted in a selected area, the user could be alerted via text message or e-mail that there has been an intrusion.

Franklin explains his motivation for creating the DroneShield:
"I bought a [drone] from Amazon and was going to use it to look at my roof. The wind took it and I crashed it into my neighbor's yard. It freaked him out once he noticed it had a camera on it," Franklin says. "It sort of dawned on me that it's so easy to invade someone's privacy with a couple hundred dollar drone." 
There are some limitations, however.  DroneShield will only be capable of detecting mid-sized drones flying within the immediate vicinity, as opposed to larger drones which fly at altitudes that could not be detected. It also will not be able to detect the increasingly minaturized drones that are modeled after insects, such as Robobee, or the potentially lethal nano-drone "Micro Air Vehicles" shown in the Air Force video below.