Drones

Drones – a threat to national security
 
Our technology may backfire on us.  It is reported that the greatest threat to national security are drones.  Jumping the fence at the Whitehouse is not the problem, but drones.  Drones can also be used to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 
 
You can Google it and learn more.  There are also websites of “Drones for Sale”.
How do you protect against drones?  Imagine terrorists in possession of drones.

There is no protection. I don't know the answer.

A drone landed on the White House lawn today.

Al Stevens wrote:

A drone landed on the White House lawn today.

SCARY!

The amazing thing about the White House Lawn was the fact that there's been little said about it.  When I lived in S. Korea a KAL cargo plane made the mistake of getting in the "space" of the government building and warning shots were fired - the shrapnel came down all over Seoul, hurting people in the streets.  I was on my way to a party and picking up an escort.  We pulled under a cupola and the sky lit up like fireworks and made thunderous sounds.  My driver looked terrified.  We waited there a long time.  Finally my escort came out.  He was waiting under his bed until it was over.  He knew it was shooting.  He thought the north had finally invaded the south.

What kind of security system today lets a drone enter the White House space?  Or people leap over the fence?  Something is very wrong.  The President and his wife were gone.  Where were the children?  And their grandmother?  And the rest of the staff that works in the White House?  I think it is outrageous the laxity in security around this president and his family.  Outrageous.

What DK said.

Remote-controlled small aircraft--including helicopters--are nothing new. The drone in question is no more threatening than what has been available in hobby shops for many decades. The media are making a big deal out of it on a slow news day. The pilot had been drinking and probably lost control of the thing. I haven't seen anything about what he was doing at the time.

Regulations are already in place, but the craft are too small to be picked up on conventional radar. A lot of knees are jerking because they fear the incident will encourage terrorists to look into this "new" potential to stir up the pot.

The manufacturer of that particular drone is looking into automatically disabling the devices within security controlled airspace. They'd have to add a GPS device. Which could be easily disabled.

One more thing for the government to regulate.

A drone was used at an attempted prison escape.  It flew into the prison yard to a window where escapees were waiting.  Fortunately or unfortunately, it crashed in the prison yard since there were too many onboard.  This happened in Hamburg, Germany.

Drones are sold on Amazon. They have many positive uses, especially in aerial photography. Almost any product can be put to a negative use.

The problem is not the technology.  The problem is our increasing fear and polarization.  More and more, we are assuming the worst-case scenarios.

When will we begin to see that fear is our biggest problem?  Are we still tied to Doomsday thinking?  Is Armageddon such an expectation that we still see it coming just around the corner?

So many, even among those who do not consciouslybelieve in Biblical prophecy are still driven by its influence.   We make assumptions for the future based on the impact it has had on our culture.

Continuing to focus our thinking in such negative directions will only help to bring them about.

We need to be focusing our attention on positive possibilitie.  We need to get to know our shadows well enough to see that they are not as evil as we perceive them to be.  Otherwise, we will bring about the very things we fear the most.

Just Annie again.

Embracing new technology without controls can lead to our destruction.  That is not dooms day thinking, but being alert to real danger.
Technology gave us nuclear weapons.  It has also given us more advanced killing machines of which drones now play a role.  It has given us faster cars and faster means of communication among other things.
As for focusing on the positive aspects, who is leading that focus group?  Controls are needed in many areas that affect our lives.  We have experienced the free market thinking that caused bankruptcies with the greedy running amok.  It is a mentality of wanting everything faster that has led to the deaths of many.  Of course there are advantages that make life easier and facilitate business; however there is a huge downside.  Robots replacing humans leading to much unemployment.  It is not just fast cars, but also the fast pace of our lives that causes stress-related illnesses.  It seems that with every positive, there is also a negative.  How to balance that is a problem that doesn’t appear to be getting enough attention.  It is prudent to recognize potential hazards before the damage occurs.  Even when the damage is done, there are always those with the “Yes, but…”  Hindsight doesn’t bring people back to life. 
As for digital technology, people are glued to their cell phone and can’t resist texting.  They are so focused on not missing out on something that they fail to see what is happening around them.  Nature is ignored.  There is a loss with human contact.
I think much as to do with age.  The young want everything immediately:  New cars, new homes completely furnished with all the frills and go into debt to have them.
Older folks, and I am in that category, want to slow down.  We want to enjoy the remaining years of life on earth. We want to enjoy a good home cooked meal and not fast food.  It is true that we endorse medical technology that can extend our lives. At the same time, we are given prescription drugs whose side-effects are not always known.  We all want to see a cure for cancer and want to know the cause.  We live in a diverse society.  Much has to do with our environment.  The views of older folk have much to do with past experience.  The young experience what is available in the present and that will mold their thinking for years to come. 
There is no right way to live and no one solution to problems.  We debate issues and irritate others in the process.  Our values differ.  I’m not so sure that making posts and sharing information that seems important to me is fruitful.  We have the technological advantage of communication via email and on forums such as this, however I believe the end result would be much different if we were to sit together and have our discussions.  Eye contact, body language and physical touch is not something that technology provides – at least not yet.
 
Excuse me for unloading.

No problem, Abe. Of course controls are needed, and there are always dangers.

All I am saying is, as I've often said before, that when our main focus is on the bad side, we tend to run back and forth bewteen extremes, and when we do that, we will never find an answer. We knee-jerk react out of fear, and never get to the center of the problem, where we find compassion and balance.

Balance is so important to consider, whether it's technology for drones or medical advances. Yes, naturopathic medicine is a good thing to consider, but dropping allopathic medicine altogether is not. b=
Both have their places, and while control there is important, too, there are as many examples of problems with "natural" cures as with prescription meds. Advances in chemotherapy have focused on targeted approaches, much like the new biologics used to treat diseases like RA. In fact, some of those biologics are used in chemotherapy as well. It's part of how they were discovered. Going to extremes in that field is as dangerous as in any other.

There will always be problems. Fiinding solutions that work means broading our perspectives so that we can see both sides, not in simply moving from one extreme to another.

The beauty of this forum is that we have communicated with each other over many years and had fierce debates and shared joy and heartbreak.  Expressing ourselves and seeking to be understood is an important aspect of humanity.  Since we are more separated these days with the incursion of technology, using it to relate is a positive use.

Terrorist will do as they wish, compelled by their driving forces and informed through today's technology.  That's the way it is.  I do believe, however, that certain facilities should be more protected.  Absolute safety has been attempted since castles surrounded by moats or on mountain tops.  All are to no avail with a determined adversary. It doesn't mean we don't at least try.

Sometimes you don’t know there is a hole in your defenses until they have been breached.

Every contingency can’t be prevented!
 

Doing a little conspiracy thinking aloud…WAS THIS A TEST????   Could the next one be bigger and DEADLY????

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." The Borg.

Opposition to technology was the theme of Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. So the other point of view can be dangerous too.

The Borg eventually were destroyed.  Of course, balance is always the answer but the fanatical people do not seek balance but rather their specific point of view and the elimination of all others.

This is not at all a new experience.  Technology makes it seem more devastating  because the world as it is now could be destroyed.  However, I imagine in ancient times the destruction of a village where the villagers had not been beyond their borders seemed as though the world was destroyed. Theirs was.  Many civilizations disappeared.

Perhaps we are narrow in our thinking as though this earth and its inhabitants are so precious.  Perhaps there is more to the universe than this one earth and we must use technology to make those discoveries to save ourselves from total destruction.

Don, my guess is that it was a test.  If drones can move without detection there are some politicians that will/should feel insecure.  Targeting those who vote to eliminate or reduce needed services is a threat not to be taken lightly.

I'm doubting that this one was a test. Those little drones are easy to buy and fly when you know how. The owner got drunk and decided to see if he could peek into the Oval Office or the residence. The drone crashed probably because he didn't really know how to control it.

I think a test operated by a hostile element would neither have crashed nor even been detected. A test probably would have been conducted at night. Even if it had crashed, the pilot would not have revealed himself. Let's not find conspiracies lurking everywhere. It's a waste of psychic energy.

What Al said.

Regardless of the waste of psychic energy, a drone floating around my windows would be major disconcerting and so far there are no protections.  I'm the first to admit that "privacy" is now a dinosaur word (I discovered that when my son tracked me to a specific chair in a specific room in my house on his cell phone using Google aps).

The word "conspiracy" is one of those loaded words that have a wide variation in meaning.  I do think it is critical to protect the space around the White House from intrusions and continue to find it irritating that a "toy" could be used to cause great harm.  That's a reality, not a conspiracy.

I don't like drones  and I am scared of them.  The idea of them flying about delivering books etc. is horrific.  If they drop one on my head, I am a goner.

To return to my original point: This is not new technology. We've had it for years.

The original harmful "drones" were the airliners that suicide terrorists flew into the WTC and the Pentagon thirteen years ago.

It's not the technology. It's the wackos who abuse it.

This is one more case where irrational hysteria and its political exploitation could result in draconian lock-down regulations that don't work.

To paraphrase our forefathers: Those who sacrifice liberty to gain security lose both and deserve neither.

dkchristi wrote:

Regardless of the waste of psychic energy, a drone floating around my windows would be major disconcerting and so far there are no protections. 

Of course there are. Close your blinds just as you do to protect yourself from a peeping tom on foot.

Good point, Al.  To feel the need for security is at the root of the problem.

I'm not home 24 hours, curtains are open in the daytime, and peeping Toms are caught by the police and neighbors.  That comparison is archaic.  Drones can go through an entire neighborhood taking their photographs before anyone notices.  Most people in my neighborhood, including me, work.  My yard is fenced as are most of my neighbors.  Drones don't care about fences.  Humans remain on the earth to escape their consequences; drones fly through the air.

I don't see any escape from the inevitable.  I don't have to like it.

I'm with DK on this one.