Why does this make me more uncomfortable than real planes?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Why are drones creepier than manned aircraft?

As previously stated. Because Skynet.

Drones are a bit disconcerting because the actions of the drones have no direct repercussions of physical harm to the operators. To worry about surveillance seems to be a first world problem compared to the reality of drone warfare utilized abroad. This is just my suspicion, but drone jets would really be the next logical step in aerial combat: When a pilot doesn't have to be supported, how much weight is saved in instruments and accommodations? When the plane or jet is not designed to a human scale, how invisible can they become? How many more G's can the plane pull? Can a military take greater risks now that pilots are not in harm's way?

Jamesc2123 wrote: We have used aircraft for surveillance in this country for years without making national headlines. Police helicopters, aerial drug enforcement, border patrol, even the interstate by me has a big sign that says "speed limit enforced by aircraft". If you think all of those uses of aircraft are evil, fine, I won't debate any of that. Or if you are a member of a pilot's union. But for the rest of us: what's the difference? A drone is just an aircraft without a pilot on board.

To me, it is the fact that people are working on ones which will fly without the need for a pilot at all.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Jamesc2123 wrote: We have used aircraft for surveillance in this country for years without making national headlines. Police helicopters, aerial drug enforcement, border patrol, even the interstate by me has a big sign that says "speed limit enforced by aircraft". If you think all of those uses of aircraft are evil, fine, I won't debate any of that. Or if you are a member of a pilot's union. But for the rest of us: what's the difference? A drone is just an aircraft without a pilot on board.

That was the original question. Why are drones creepier than manned aircraft? See original thread title :)

Then the answer is: they're not .

N Sperlo wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: How difficult would it be to spy on a political opponent, or dissident in order to smear them publicly?

I don't disagree, but it made me LOL. "Hey check out Clinton." Anyway, satellite imagery is already capable of this. Thats why I'm not worried about drones looking at me in my undies. With FLIR, they could practically see *under* the undies.

You can't take a whiz in the dark

N Sperlo wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again every time I see this topic come up. If you are worried about the drones, you have no idea the capabilities of or modern day imaging satellites. I will not delve into that anymore, but leave that to your own investigative geniuses.

I wasn't aware rental cops had SIPRnet access these days...

Osterkraut wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again every time I see this topic come up. If you are worried about the drones, you have no idea the capabilities of or modern day imaging satellites. I will not delve into that anymore, but leave that to your own investigative geniuses.

I wasn't aware rental cops had SIPRnet access these days...

They give that to any non-felon that has decent credit.

rotard wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again every time I see this topic come up. If you are worried about the drones, you have no idea the capabilities of or modern day imaging satellites. I will not delve into that anymore, but leave that to your own investigative geniuses.

I wasn't aware rental cops had SIPRnet access these days...

They give that to any non-felon that has decent credit.

I don't even think the decent credit bit is true!