barfbag Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 These inexpensive drones all require a pilot to steer them, I assume. It would not seem that difficult to incorporate navigation via GPS satellites into these drones, which would allow them to be used to deliver a cargo like a bomb or an air bourne toxin to a building, automatically Yes. Already some cheap ones are getting a "call Home" feature that is a one button recall for the device. After you took your film you just press the button and it flies in autopilot mode to your controller.I'm sure there is over the counter drone software out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 @ Swans on Tea, That's too bad then for you. In my country if a killer used a car to kill or injure a variety of traffic violations Reckless Driving, Driving under the influence, Speeding, running red lights, Manslaughter, etc. We take dangerous drivers off the road. If your countries allow killers who kill with cars to drive again then try discussing that with a politician, and maybe you can get them fixed. You misunderstand. I was speaking of killers driving cars for mundane reasons, like getting to and from the scene of the killing. A drive-by shooting, for example. You don't ban the car because a passenger used a gun. That's the analogue for what you are proposing. Vehicular homicide would be analogous to someone crashing a drone into someone to kill them. Why is discussing this "fixating"? Because the risk involved is minuscule, and there are higher-risk issues that could be addressed. The threat is not real. This is a weird analogue to hypochondria. If you are going to make predictions about the future you need to update your thinking. Facial recognition is fast growing in the private sector and you will be forced to wear a mask to the mall if you don't want mannequin's or animations talking to you. I suppose it is natural you did not know this, but Facial recognition software is abundant and not hard to use. Having a mannequin talk to me does not require that it identify who I am, just that someone be nearby. That's a red herring argument. You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer. Once again we have a claim but no supporting link. Until you demonstrate this, I will assume it's not true. I've seen ridiculous RC cars in movies that are supposedly as fast as street cars. It is a fun idea I suppose. I do not see them as much of a threat as you seem to deem them worthy. I have never heard of the Military deploying drone/RC land based vehicles for murderous intent although I'm sure they must have them. Flying drones on the other hand can operate from a position of impunity because of their flying abilities. No, you miss the point. I don't deem RC cars "worthy" as a threat. They are as ridiculous a threat as RC killer copters. The technology exists and nobody is being killed this way, because it's an absurd way to kill someone. Okay, here is a link showing Facial Recognition and Drones are already compatible, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-09/army-wants-drones-can-recognize-your-face-and-read-your-mind How did I misconstrue the abilities of FR software? You are equating "is working on" with "has perfected" which are not even close to being the same thing. Plotting a search grid with a land based vehicle is intrinsically harder than programming a search grid in a flying drone. Have you ever seen that little Japanese Robot that's always at shows? It takes them days of programming just to get it to move for 20 seconds. So when should this idea be discussed? The day after a terrorist cell launches 10 000 exploding $100 drones on City Hall, or targets police uniforms and cars, or targets children? Perhaps it might be too little too late. Is a terrorist not going to do this because of some law against flying drones? Terrorists are law-abiding? We would find and stop these people the same way we find and stop any other plot that didn't involve drones. Not by rules specifically targeting RC helicopters. If we outlawed drones, they would find some other delivery method. Even if we don't outlaw drones, the odds are they would find some other delivery method. We are talking about a method of murder that is commonplace with the military. No, the kind of drones the military uses is different, and the method of killing is different. Whether it's murder is a different discussion, but to call it that is poisoning the well. That links to an article where they are building this topic (Not RC car versions sorry). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0ErhprN4#t=166 First of all, this is not what you were claiming earlier, since these are not carrying guns to shoot people, so you're moving the goal posts. Second, this is all animation; it's a science-fictionalized telling of what the film maker thinks might happen (and most of that is surveillance), so this is still, literally, a movie threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) @ Swanson, No, you miss the point. I don't deem RC cars "worthy" as a threat. They are as ridiculous a threat as RC killer copters. The technology exists and nobody is being killed this way, because it's an absurd way to kill someone. If you are equating RC cars as being as efficient at killing as flying drones then I must assume you think they are comparable on some level. To be honest though that is not even a decent movie plot. Have a shipping container full of 1000 drones carrying C4 to places of interest however does sound like a convincing movie plot, and sadly is not hard to imagine or likely do. By the way.. Remote control implies human control which is only partially correct. If you tell your dog to go sit somewhere is he being autonomous or being controlled. Many quad copter drones have the ability to follow maps, return to sender, remain in one spot in high winds (or correct), navigate obstacles without the need for people. you said, Having a mannequin talk to me does not require that it identify who I am, just that someone be nearby. That's a red herring argument. Yes, but in a conversation specifically discussing Facial Recognition Software, you should be able to jump to the conclusion that we are discussing being recognized by you know (Facial Recognition Software). From the above and also this comment, Once again we have a claim but no supporting link. Until you demonstrate this, I will assume it's not true. after I had said,"You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer." I suppose I now need to update your education on Facial Recognition Software even though you could easily google this yourself. From http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-face-unlock-your-htc-one-x-or-evo-4g-lte As facial recognition software gets more and more sophisticated, it will also become more and more affordable – appearing on many of our electronic devices. While not foolproof – just yet – the Face Unlock feature built into your new Android phone does pretty well. The argument against using facial recognition software is that it is too easy to “fool” the software into thinking you are the owner. Fortunately, Samsung also includes a “backup” recognition using standard PIN or Pattern input. So it is not perfect, but it is certainly able to pick someone out of a crowd who is not trying to fool it. If someone was wearing a mask of the victim at the right locations then it might be fooled, but FR software is very capable. Similar articles in Time magazine, etc.. http://techland.time.com/2012/01/10/unlock-your-iphone-with-your-face/ http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=19867 Plus hundreds of articles in Nature Magazine on it, example.. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v310/n1/full/scientificamerican0114-10.html This article discusses how our governments will be able to use our faces without our permission like fingerprints. No worries though. After a brief search I realize there are 100's of videos supporting my position. The idea of this being a movie plot is not as unique as you think. Are not most movies based on things that can and do occur? The military has one Micro drone designed to search and destroy snipers. One state is considering issuing Drone Hunting Licenses to rid their skies of them. Drones are commonplace in war now. There is no reason to walk into a dangerous area now, clear it with drones. Anyways Swansontea,. It helps to keep current on technology, especially if you aim to jest at the future of it. Try reading about things before you comment. It is fairly common knowledge that FR software has strong roots in the Scientific Community, so I really do not understand the incredulity you have towards it. Edited July 3, 2014 by barfbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Yeah, I have to agree to at least requiring licensing. There's simply too much you can do with one. Doesn't take genius to install a remote release mechanism and start dropping stuff. Just find a descent sized crowd or structure and you are good to go. Probably just nuisance attacks will be the main issue. Delivery of paint bombs without any realistic threat of arrest. More curious how the self driving vehicles are going to pan out. Those are probably going to end up as components in the worst attacks down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 @ Swanson, If you are equating RC cars as being as efficient at killing as flying drones then I must assume you think they are comparable on some level. Yes, they are both ludicrous as legitimate risks when compared to the way that people actually kill each other in the real world. To be honest though that is not even a decent movie plot. Have a shipping container full of 1000 drones carrying C4 to places of interest however does sound like a convincing movie plot, and sadly is not hard to imagine or likely do. Agreed. It is a movie plot. By the way.. Remote control implies human control which is only partially correct. If you tell your dog to go sit somewhere is he being autonomous or being controlled. Many quad copter drones have the ability to follow maps, return to sender, remain in one spot in high winds (or correct), navigate obstacles without the need for people. you said, Yes, but in a conversation specifically discussing Facial Recognition Software, you should be able to jump to the conclusion that we are discussing being recognized by you know (Facial Recognition Software). From the above and also this comment, after I had said,"You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer." I suppose I now need to update your education on Facial Recognition Software even though you could easily google this yourself. From http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-face-unlock-your-htc-one-x-or-evo-4g-lte So it is not perfect, but it is certainly able to pick someone out of a crowd who is not trying to fool it. If someone was wearing a mask of the victim at the right locations then it might be fooled, but FR software is very capable. You quote an article citing all of these flaws, and then say it is very capable. Are you even reading what you link to? And the software isn't comparable to what you need. You have a front-on picture of someone, and a program is being asked to check and see if the person of front of the phone matches the picture. It keeps other people out. That's not the same as "go find this person in a crowd". In the unlocking case you have an idealized situation, and the software isn't even reliable under those circumstances. No worries though. After a brief search I realize there are 100's of videos supporting my position. The idea of this being a movie plot is not as unique as you think. Are not most movies based on things that can and do occur? No they are not. How many action-thrillers are based on real events? Presidents being hijacked on Air Force One? Thieves posing as terrorists trying to steal hundreds of millions in bearer bonds? Seriously? Movies are based on a veneer of plausibility allowing you to suspend disbelief, and a whole lot of ignorance about the details of how systems actually work. I wouldn't be surprised if there are discussion boards dedicated to the dismantling of plots by people who actually know what was being glossed over in the movies. What's easy in a movie isn't necessarily easy in reality. Movies are fiction. Even in the paintball drone movie you posted, we don't know how well that works. We see what the movie producers want us to see. We don't know how many takes it took to get it right. And how much video got deleted because the system didn't work. That's the magic of movies. They can be edited to show what you want people to see. The military has one Micro drone designed to search and destroy snipers. One state is considering issuing Drone Hunting Licenses to rid their skies of them. Drones are commonplace in war now. There is no reason to walk into a dangerous area now, clear it with drones. Not the same as targeting a specific individual, and once again, the drones you are citing for military use are not RC helicopters. There's been a push recently to not call the devices civilians can use "drones" because of the confusion that causes — people are thinking they are the same as military drones, and they aren't. Anyways Swansontea,. It helps to keep current on technology, especially if you aim to jest at the future of it. Try reading about things before you comment. It is fairly common knowledge that FR software has strong roots in the Scientific Community, so I really do not understand the incredulity you have towards it. Reading about things in pop-sci articles is not the level of research needed for such a discussion. The thing can't do here is challenge you to go and do the experiment, because the experiment is illegal. All you have left is a thought experiment, but it's far too easy to do thought experiments that don't work in reality, owing to some overlooked detail. The bottom line is that drones are far too close to Dr. Evil's unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism method of killing, and too far away from Scott's suggestion of going and getting a gun and shooting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 @ Swansont, And the software isn't comparable to what you need. You have a front-on picture of someone, and a program is being asked to check and see if the person of front of the phone matches the picture. It keeps other people out. That's not the same as "go find this person in a crowd". In the unlocking case you have an idealized situation, and the software isn't even reliable under those circumstances. You clearly have continued misunderstandings of what Facial Recognition Software is capable of now. You do know it is now used in every International Airport to search crowds these days. Here are FURTHER examples. The above video is public software and not military. If you own a Barbershop you can run this program to recall all of your customers names and tipping habits. If you own a coffeeshop you can use FRS to detect customers and offer them their "regular" order. In a few years you'll be able to walk in any restaurant and say, "I'll have my usual", and they will know what that is even if they have not seen you in weeks. You won't need to scan into work every morning. Your work will just "know" if you are there. If you pass a sign on a bench it may say, "Hey SwansonT! Come sit and talk for a while" as it goes into sales pitch mode. This is not futuristic Hoohaa. This is already possible. The only future left for FRS is for its expansion into almost every device and 1001 ways to disguise your face so the mall does not report you for truancy. You won't even need to pay for your Groceries. You will just nod at a machine while you leave the store, and the cameras will know who you are and everything you put in your bag because it is watching you..... Most everything you say in the your last few posts display you are very unaware of how well Facial Recognition Software actually is. The only way it can be fooled is by wearing a photo on your face (and that is detectable also), or placing coloured marks (patches of black/Brown in various face locations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuYDtonfmUA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 @ Swansont, You clearly have continued misunderstandings of what Facial Recognition Software is capable of now. You do know it is now used in every International Airport to search crowds these days. Here are FURTHER examples. That's the first relevant example you've given. So the question becomes, if this is part of package for killing people, why are you focused on the drones and not the facial recognition software, which has other creepy, privacy-invasion issues attached to it. Isn't that the greater threat? But, it's still a movie plot threat. A simple analysis would apply here: the technology already exists, and no killings have been reported. The probability of someone doing it can't be very high. It's not hard to figure out why: it's unnecessarily complicated. Complex systems have more potential points of failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) @ Swansont, That's the first relevant example you've given. So the question becomes, if this is part of package for killing people, why are you focused on the drones and not the facial recognition software, which has other creepy, privacy-invasion issues attached to it. Isn't that the greater threat? First. That is a nice thought out point you give in reference to FRS being a danger, and this might have been a fun discussion if I did not need to update Pwagens Drone Engineering knowledge and bring you up to date on where we are with Facial Recognition Software. I'd like to make a point that I was discussing existing science that is very common knowledge. This was meant to be a bit of an ethics debate or how to prevent such terrors from occurring, but the Engineering and FRS should never have been questioned here. I falsely assumed people who enjoy commenting on science threads might know a few things about science and the topics they choose to comment on. Why even offer opinions on topics you know you are very uninformed in? Even now you are saying civillian Drone attacks are just a fantasy Movie Style Threat that will likely never occur in reality although you admittedly show you just learned yesterday that Facial Recognition Software is at the level needed for this. You are applying a days worth of knowledge to your prediction of the future. Am I seeing this wrong? Finally you believe me that Facial Recognition Software can be used accurately in crowds, but that is only because I kept underestimating how little you knew about the subject being discussed, and had to keep adding more. I bet if any of us asks an average high school kid if cameras can track people by faces most of them would know it is possible. Please feel free to ask any High School students you know. I know my kids know. There are even hit TV shows capitalizing on the abuse of this tech. One is called "person of interest", but it goes a bit overboard with the program becoming lifelike. Maybe licensing Facial Recognition Software is a start. Your question about the software being more dangerous than the drones... Currently when the military uses Drone Strikes they simply blow up the drone at a location. This is causing a lot of civilian casualties. Imagine your local gangs start fighting with drones. Would you rather them have facial recognition software or not? I actually would prefer they target the right people so less children will be murdered in drive-by playground shootings. At least if they are targeting a drug dealer then it is that drug dealer who will die and not the kids next to him. That all depend on if the drone explodes or shoots its targets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OsyGygERHM You question whether terrorists will ever use drones? Here is an article (old/old topic) from Nature Magazine. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v306/n1/full/scientificamerican0112-16.html Maybe the main aggravation is they may hover over your backyard and take a picture of your wife sunbathing for the Internet while noticing that you like paper plates, gas lawnmower by lawn boy, prefer steak to hot dogs, and the lifejackets in your shed show you like water sports. The drone above your backyard might also learn your nickname is Booboo, and your neighbors daughter is pregnant. Here is an article from nature magazine indicating above may occur, http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n4/full/scientificamerican0413-12.html WATCH VIDEO BELOW STARTING AT 1:30... Now that we are on the same page look at the above video. Maybe drones will catch jumpers from a future high rise fire using this tech (yes they would need to be a bit bigger). This shows that drones can already be used in unison to carry and throw objects, and can even calculate their trajectory and speed and be there to centre the catch. I imagine the processing of this demonstration was done via radio, but perhaps the drones themselves can carry the software and computing hardware. It is interesting. Drones being used in formations and unison are also not new (see Google). In news I heard that in 2001 American military had 50 drones. Now they have over 7500 of varying sizes. (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-LYLvhQv20) Here are some drones carrying full wine glasses, etc. The FBI has admitted to using drones in America. It is starting out already. Soon you may be getting speeding tickets in the mail from a Drone Flying over the roads you drive on. Personally I don't care much about Police using them or the Big Brother aspects as long as my family stays safe. It is when criminals start using them. Note: Part of my job as a Soil Engineer is to explore some large properties which often means a lot of driving and hiking. Soon everyone in my line of work will likely carry a drone in their car for quicker land surveys. In 20 years maybe I'll be able to launch the UAV from my office and I can forgo the driving. Maybe the drillers will send in their own drones to find my stakes and drill from the sky? What other jobs can be enhanced by drones? Maybe a drone Waitress (I would not eat there or use automated check-outs)? Drones will be huge soon. It is hard not to imagine the terror aspects of it, and that is also a common opinion. Edited July 5, 2014 by barfbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Movies are based on a veneer of plausibility allowing you to suspend disbelief, and a whole lot of ignorance about the details of how systems actually work. Oddly, the same suspension of disbelief allows us to simultaneously place an inordinate amount of hope in a system like flying drones, AND and a hopelessly low value on a proven concept like guided explosive ordinance. Drones can minigun down a crowd, but a missile strike ten feet from a target doesn't even make him miss a step as he runs on by?! No. Downplaying the effectiveness of current missile tech is necessary to make the drones seem viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 I would think a Flying Drone armed with a bomb is equal to a guided Missile. Drones sound cheaper and just as accurate, but sound slower. I suppose it boils down to definitions of Drone vs Missiles. A drone could use laser guidance for example. That brings up a point though about why worry about collateral damage. If you are a killer then why not simply forgo identifying your victim and just kill everyone at his house. No need for FRS. Imagine John Rambo sneaking through a jungle looking to rescue a bunch of school girls from The Taliban. Instead of pulling out an M-16 though he opens a suitcase and 500 micro drones fly high in the sky and begin identifying enemies and civilians from high above. Then an attack command is given and each drone dives into an enemies hair and explodes. The remaining drones go into escort mode and continue to scan all directions for enemy movement. The hostages walk free. The above scenario is likely already possible based on what we have seen civilian drones capable of. Don't become a criminal because within a decade you would be found hiding in the deepest of sewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 That brings up a point though about why worry about collateral damage. If you are a killer then why not simply forgo identifying your victim and just kill everyone at his house. No need for FRS. Now you're talking. Do another cost/benefit analysis now. Odds of success go way up if you drop the drones and use a reliable old RPG. Don't become a criminal because within a decade you would be found hiding in the deepest of sewers. That's funny, I saw the trailer for this movie plot watching the other movie plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I would think a Flying Drone armed with a bomb is equal to a guided Missile. Drones sound cheaper and just as accurate, but sound slower. I suppose it boils down to definitions of Drone vs Missiles. A drone could use laser guidance for example. All for $200. Incredible. Is this all available at WalMart? The above scenario is likely already possible based on what we have seen civilian drones capable of. Rambo, of course, being a documentary, so everything in it is realistic. Whom are you quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Author Share Posted July 15, 2014 All for $200. Incredible. Is this all available at WalMart? Okay ... maybe $225 after taxes. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Okay ... maybe $225 after taxes. My bad. I'm sure the FBI will be disappointed to find that they could have bought top-of-the-line facial recognition software for $25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 If the FBI were criminal and murdering types that would kill with a drone then maybe they might try to pirate the software using bit torrents. Please close this thread after you insult me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Please close this thread after you insult me again. ! Moderator Note Observation: The "Attack the idea, not the person" rule only works when the person is able to separate themselves from their idea. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts