Rolling Drone Thread

I'm skeptical that a human in a plane can pilot better than a gamer w/ a joystick.

may you live in interesting decades

I'm still aligned with the reality-based community myself.

The advantages of a big expensive drone is that it can handle way more gs, will never panic, doesn't become fatigued or subject to environmental factors. In order to accommodate a human pilot, significant amounts of weight and design are compromised...and the leading cause of crashes will be pilot error.

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/27/medals_for_drone_pilots_hagel_still_cant_decide

They should just do Achievements

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/02/avenger/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/opinion/let-the-military-run-drone-warfare.html

seems like a great idea to me -why diversify our war crimes when we can get the same division doing all of them?

“Civilian casualties” authorized under secret US drone-strike memo: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/civilian-casualties-authorized-under-secret-us-drone-strike-memo/

A secret Obama administration memo disclosed Monday outlines the legal justification for the government's drone-targeted killing program, a lethal strategy that authorizes the killing of innocents as collateral damage.

The memo (PDF), released by a US federal appeals court under a Freedom of Information Act request, describes the government's legal underpinnings for its so-called overseas targeted-killing program where drones from afar shoot missiles at buildings, cars, and people. It began under the George W. Bush administration but was broadened under Obama and now includes the killing of Americans.

leading cause of crashes will be pilot error.

Belated note to Don:

Just because a drone's joystick is located outside the plane doesn't mean the person holding it is not the pilot or is magically exempted from making an pilot error or becoming fatigued. While the panic of being responsible for the loss of a drone worth tens of millions of dollars may not be quite as potent if you are not in it at the time, I presume it can still get a good amount of fear stirred up.

IT BEGINS

The commercial use of drones in American skies took a leap forward on Thursday with the help of Hollywood.

The Federal Aviation Administration, responding to applications from seven filmmaking companies and pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America, said six of those companies could use camera-equipped drones on certain movie and television sets. Until now, the F.A.A. has not permitted commercial drone use except for extremely limited circumstances in wilderness areas of Alaska.

Put bluntly, this is the first time that companies in the United States will be able to legally use drones to fly over people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/business/media/drone-exemptions-for-hollywood-pave-the-way-for-widespread-use.html

ok fine, you welcome our corporate low-flying unmanned overlords

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/10/16/only-4-of-drone-victims-in-pakistan-named-as-al-qaeda-members/

As the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan hits 400, research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism finds that fewer than 4% of the people killed have been identified by available records as named members of al Qaeda. This calls in to question US Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim last year that only “confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level” were fired at.

The Bureau’s Naming the Dead project has gathered the names and, where possible, the details of people killed by CIA drones in Pakistan since June 2004. On October 11 an attack brought the total number of drone strikes in Pakistan up to 400.

The names of the dead have been collected over a year of research in and outside Pakistan, using a multitude of sources. These include both Pakistani government records leaked to the Bureau, and hundreds of open source reports in English, Pashtun and Urdu.

Naming the Dead has also drawn on field investigations conducted by the Bureau’s researchers in Pakistan and other organisations, including Amnesty International, Reprieve and the Centre for Civilians in Conflict.

Only 704 of the 2,379 dead have been identified, and only 295 of these were reported to be members of some kind of armed group. Few corroborating details were available for those who were just described as militants. More than a third of them were not designated a rank, and almost 30% are not even linked to a specific group. Only 84 are identified as members of al Qaeda – less than 4% of the total number of people killed.

These findings “demonstrate the continuing complete lack of transparency surrounding US drone operations,” said Mustafa Qadri, Pakistan researcher for Amnesty International.

When asked for a comment on the Bureau’s investigation, US National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that strikes were only carried out when there was “near-certainty” that no civilians would be killed.

“The death of innocent civilians is something that the U.S. Government seeks to avoid if at all possible. In those rare instances in which it appears non-combatants may have been killed or injured, after-action reviews have been conducted to determine why, and to ensure that we are taking the most effective steps to minimise such risk to non-combatants in the future,” said Hayden.

The Obama administration’s stated legal justification for such strikes is based partly on the right to self-defence in response to an imminent threat. This has proved controversial as leaked documents show the US believes determining if a terrorist is an imminent threat “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

*sigh*

Only 704 of the 2,379 dead have been identified

"In those rare instances in which it appears non-combatants may have been killed..."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare

"The C.I.A. has never explained the criteria it uses to count a drone victim as a civilian. Nor has it described what sort of interviews or field research, if any, the agency’s analysts undertake to investigate possible mistakes. According to a May, 2012, Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, “Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants . . . unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” In briefings to congressional intelligence committees, the C.I.A. has disputed that characterization, saying that any person deliberately targeted must be associated with a known fighting group or enemy facility, or else be observed preparing for violence."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/french-nuclear-plant-hit-by-another-mystery-drone-flyover/5864836

Two drones flew in formation above my neighborhood in Oakland the other day. Wave of the future I guess.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

holy shit that article is horrifying

yeah, damning

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/12/03/pentagon_centcom_civilian_casualties_of_us_airstrikes_in_iraq_and_syria_no_compensation

The Pentagon accepts that with hundreds of allied bombings aimed at Islamic State targets since August, there is a "continued risk inherent in these strikes" for civilians on the ground. But that doesn't mean the United States will offer compensation if it kills them.

The United States is not planning to grant compensation for civilians killed in airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, Foreign Policy has learned, despite claims by credible groups that at least 100 noncombatants may already have died in the 16 weeks of U.S.-led bombings.

The decision, confirmed by a senior spokesman for U.S. Central Command (Centcom), the military command organization in charge of the air war, marks a significant departure from recent conflicts, in which payments have regularly been made to civilians negatively impacted by U.S. military actions.

Washington continues to insist it cannot confirm a single noncombatant death from more than 1,100 airstrikes against Islamic State targets -- despite a number of apparently well-documented cases of error or collateral damage in both Iraq and Syria.

The URL basically says it all.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/22/7434443/drone-porn-creepy-dronehunter-pornhub-videos

http://gdb.voanews.com/4A82F1A7-25C2-4079-9A52-917E2479168C_w974_n_s.jpg

Paris police say they have spotted at least five drones flying over the French capital overnight, and an investigation is under way into who was flying them and why.

BFM TV reported they were seen flying over the Eiffel tower, the Louvre museum and the US embassy, among other locations.

A Paris police official confirmed the presence of the drones in city airspace but would not provide other details. The national gendarme service said an investigation had been launched.

In recent months France has seen dozens of mystery drones flying over nuclear plants and military installations. One flew over the presidential palace.

French authorities said the drones currently present no threat but the government has asked scientists to help devise ways to counteract the devices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKhI3MyUVw0

...In A Night

i like these mystery drone stories
where do they come from
what are the doing
who are they

most boring/likely explanation is they're prob just semi-pro videographers getting sweet aerial b-roll footage of paris to sell to stock footage companies

Christmas shopping last year was the first time I realized how big consumer drones are getting, every consumer electronics place I went to had them everywhere, like they are the hot big-ticket item. Felt extremely Orwellian.

that’s the orwellian dream - a drone in every pot

this must be happening everywhere though xxp
just that unlike in nyc it offends french principles of dirigism to see unapproved technologies being used by unknown persons....god forbid someone might see what the seldom photographed exteriors of the louvre or the eiffel tower look like

It's the new Special Relationship!

"A top-secret U.S. intelligence document obtained by The Intercept confirms that the sprawling U.S. military base in Ramstein, Germany serves as the high-tech heart of America’s drone program. Ramstein is the site of a satellite relay station that enables drone operators in the American Southwest to communicate with their remote aircraft in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and other targeted countries. The top-secret slide deck, dated July 2012, provides the most detailed blueprint seen to date of the technical architecture used to conduct strikes with Predator and Reaper drones.

Amid fierce European criticism of America’s targeted killing program, U.S. and German government officials have long downplayed Ramstein’s role in lethal U.S. drone operations and have issued carefully phrased evasions when confronted with direct questions about the base. But the slides show that the facilities at Ramstein perform an essential function in lethal drone strikes conducted by the CIA and the U.S. military in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa.

The slides were provided by a source with knowledge of the U.S. government’s drone program who declined to be identified because of fears of retribution. According to the source, Ramstein’s importance to the U.S. drone war is difficult to overstate. 'Ramstein carries the signal to tell the drone what to do and it returns the display of what the drone sees. Without Ramstein, drones could not function, at least not as they do now,' the source said."

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/17/ramstein/

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday offered an emotional apology for the accidental killing of two hostages held by Al Qaeda, one of them American, in a United States government counterterrorism operation in January, saying he takes “full responsibility” for their deaths.

“As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations,” including the one that inadvertently took the lives of the two captives, a grim-faced Mr. Obama said in a statement to reporters in the White House briefing room.

“I profoundly regret what happened,” he added. “On behalf of the U.S. government, I offer our deepest apologies to the families.”

Mr. Obama’s remarks came shortly after the White House released an extraordinary statement revealing that intelligence officials had confirmed that Warren Weinstein, an American held by Al Qaeda since 2011, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian held since 2012, died during a drone strike.

What are we fighting for?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/us-drone-strike-killed-american-italian-al-qaida

Earnest said the compound was targeted based on “near-certain” intelligence that indicated it was being frequented by at least one al-Qaida leader, and that no civilians were in the area. Earnest said the review may raise “legitimate questions” that would force the administration to change its protocols for such operations.

Conceding that the operation was not ordered against any individual targets, Earnest said the administration only discovered later that the compound was occupied by Weinstein, La Porto and another American named Ahmed Farouq, who the White House says was a “leader” of the terrorist group.

Farouq was not, however, the target of the operation. The drone strike was not targeted at known al-Qaida members; instead, it was directed against anyone in the vicinity of what the US believed was a compound being used by the terrorist group.

A recent analysis by human-rights group Reprieve estimated that US drone strikes intending to target 41 men had killed 1,147 people as of November.

From that Guardian article

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/04/23/swiss_post_and_matternet_will_partner_on_drone_mail_delivery_service.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/politics/deep-support-in-washington-for-cias-drone-missions.html

i feel like a lot of the opposition to drones is some kind of unreasonable fear of the unknown since they're more morally neutral than most army tech - they have obvious civilian applications - even putting aside the question of whether they create fewer fatalities than more conventional warfare (which saletan @ slate is /droning/ on about again).

Although lawmakers insist that there is great accountability to the program, interviews with administration and congressional officials show that Congress holds the program to less careful scrutiny than many members assert. Top C.I.A. officials, who learned the importance of cultivating Congress after the resistance they ran into on the detention program, have dug in to protect the agency’s drone operations, frustrating a pledge by Mr. Obama two years ago to overhaul the program and pull it from the shadows.

Perhaps no single C.I.A. officer has been more central to the effort than Michael D’Andrea, a gaunt, chain-smoking convert to Islam who was chief of operations during the birth of the agency’s detention and interrogation program and then, as head of the C.I.A. Counterterrorism Center, became an architect of the targeted killing program. Until last month, when Mr. D’Andrea was quietly shifted to another job, he presided over the growth of C.I.A. drone operations and hundreds of strikes in Pakistan and Yemen during nine years in the position.

x-post to Mordy --even putting aside the question of whether they create fewer fatalities than more conventional warfare

We are seeing some moving of the goalposts now. Supporters of drone warfare used to carry on about how precise it was, now that the President is admitting two accidental deaths, and the CIA's program of using drones to hit what they believe are terrorist only camps is proving not so accurate, the new argument is simply well its better than conventional warfare. Referring only to conventional warfare also leaves out capturing specific terrorists, which yes entails some risk too, but has been done, including recently. The other issue with this is the near total secrecy involved in all aspects of the program.

I don't think that's true. I've been seeing the 'fewer fatalities than conventional warfare' argument for years now. Such as this article two articles ago:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/02/drones_war_and_civilian_casualties_how_unmanned_aircraft_reduce_collateral.html

two years ago*

or http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/drones-actually-the-most-humane-form-of-warfare-ever/278746/ or http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/ or http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html?_r=0 which says:

But most critics of the Obama administration’s aggressive use of drones for targeted killing have focused on evidence that they are unintentionally killing innocent civilians. From the desolate tribal regions of Pakistan have come heartbreaking tales of families wiped out by mistake and of children as collateral damage in the campaign against Al Qaeda. And there are serious questions about whether American officials have understated civilian deaths.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Times Topic: Predator Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare.

“I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” said Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.

“You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just?” Mr. Strawser said. But for extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents, he said, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have.”

Ok, some have made that argument for awhile, but the problem is that with so little information available, we don't know how many civilians have been killed, and when capture operations could have been utilized instead. Also, there's Obama's speech versus the CIA's methods

Obama's 2013 pledge:

To stop terrorists from gaining a foothold, drones will be deployed, Obama said, but only when there is an imminent threat; no hope of capturing the targeted terrorist; "near certainty" that civilians won't be harmed; and "there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat."

vs CIA in 2015: Conceding that the operation was not ordered against any individual targets

tbf more conventional warfare is not any more accountable or targeted

It's a bit more accountable in the sense that you can't arbitrarily decide to send troops into Yemen at the drop of a hat.

or cambodia?

cambodia was wrong too