Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 So my pointing out that the proposed system that you want to impliment costs more and sucks means I'm unprincipled and want to open up our borders? Seems like a pretty big leap there, Paul. What was it that Ken menioned (edit sic: mentioned) in the other thread? Throwing money at a problem? 648261[/snapback] Any part of the system, stand alone is not all that effective until integrated. A piece of a machine. An on station loiter time of 20 hours, with the flexibility to shift targets when required has it's attractiveness, and none of the naysayers are saying this isn't true. As the technology improves, and the demand for these systems goes up, the costs per operating unit will come down. Part of the problem is in not having enough of them. A fixed sensor array can be defeated much easier than a mobile platform that can be re-directed at discretion. But, it seems like your general take is that if "The Government" looks at anything it is doing something wrong unless it has somebody's extra, specific permission, or is a Democrat led government. Of what use is a "warrant" when related to what amounts to perimeter surveillance? Honest question. Who do you get it against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Of what use is a "warrant" when related to what amounts to perimeter surveillance? Honest question. Who do you get it against? 648292[/snapback] This guy: Infiltrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'll go one further. Because you linked to a pdf file, which most people aren't going to open and read, I'll paste in the bit on UAVs (it was on page 8, or "ocho" for all the illegals that will cross over the boarder while the drone leads the Border Patrol to a rabbit warren)...Additional note added as edit: As for the ABC "interpretation", there wasn't one. The quote in the ABC report was from Richard Skinner, Department of Homeland Security inspector general. I share your horror that the liberal media has infiltrated a high-level post at DHS, though. Have they no shame? 648267[/snapback] No need to get defensive about the liberal media. The ABC News account only presented snippets of Skinner's testimony (you also didn't copy the entire article.) That's why it's worthwhile for people to read the whole report. The salient parts are in the Recommendations section. My take on Skinner's estimony is that he isn't opposed to UAVs, but that the technology is still young and it isn't well integrated with legacy monitoring systems. That's not what you would get out of reading ABC News' nor your analysis. If opening a PDF file is such a hindrance to people, then I apologize. They should only rely on news sources that can be digested in 10 seconds or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Any part of the system, stand alone is not all that effective until integrated. A piece of a machine. An on station loiter time of 20 hours, with the flexibility to shift targets when required has it's attractiveness, and none of the naysayers are saying this isn't true. As the technology improves, and the demand for these systems goes up, the costs per operating unit will come down. Part of the problem is in not having enough of them. A fixed sensor array can be defeated much easier than a mobile platform that can be re-directed at discretion. But, it seems like your general take is that if "The Government" looks at anything it is doing something wrong unless it has somebody's extra, specific permission, or is a Democrat led government. Of what use is a "warrant" when related to what amounts to perimeter surveillance? Honest question. Who do you get it against? 648292[/snapback] I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if the costs came down, and efficiency went up. 90% false positive rate is insane, even if it did cost less than what's currently in place. But why should they pay a shitload of money for something that's pretty ineffective? When the technology makes them more affordable, then get them (how's that for fiscal responsibility, Ken?), but why get them now? You're paying for a false sense of security. If the drones are limited to border surveillence, and there were acceptable restrictions in place, (ie how much of a pain in the ass will their presence taking off and landing in commercial airspace be; how will they reconcile filing flight plans with the FAA [the one article said the issue was the FAA wants a 30 day notice, the Patrol wants to launch at their own discretion]; what is the Border Patrol's jurisdiction wrt US citizens; what limitation on their use will there be), then I wouldn't have a problem with them patrolling the borders. My problem lies with what was alluded to in the other articles about using drones for crowd control, and "to supplement surveillence capabilities on the ground". I'm not an idiot. These things are (or can be) equipped with more than cameras (no, I'm not talking weapons). I don't like the idea of any administration potentially using these to "observe" US citizens inside the US borders. Like I said, what will the use restrictions be? Who's authorized to use them? Just the Border Patrol? Who is on the oversight of their use? The Justice Department? DHS? NSA? Why is it so freaking unamerican to ask these types of questions? Like it or not, unless you're George W. Bush or Alberto Gonzales, you need a warrant to get around the "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue, even though in a lot of cases you don't need a direct line of sight through a window to "observe" someone with today's technology. In sum, I have no problem with your expensive, unreliable, inefficient drone provided they only patrol the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if the costs came down, and efficiency went up. 90% false positive rate is insane, even if it did cost less than what's currently in place. But why should they pay a shitload of money for something that's pretty ineffective? When the technology makes them more affordable, then get them (how's that for fiscal responsibility, Ken?), but why get them now? You're paying for a false sense of security. 648314[/snapback] You have potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 No need to get defensive about the liberal media. The ABC News account only presented snippets of Skinner's testimony (you also didn't copy the entire article.) That's why it's worthwhile for people to read the whole report. The salient parts are in the Recommendations section. My take on Skinner's estimony is that he isn't opposed to UAVs, but that the technology is still young and it isn't well integrated with legacy monitoring systems. That's not what you would get out of reading ABC News' nor your analysis. If opening a PDF file is such a hindrance to people, then I apologize. They should only rely on news sources that can be digested in 10 seconds or less. 648303[/snapback] And I apologize for the tone of my response to you. Whether or not he's opposed to their use doesn't take away from the fact that as they currently stand, wrt reliability and efficiency, they aren't worth the money. Where are all the fiscal conservatives on this board? I can't believe that I, a progressive liberal Dem, am the one shouting loudest about government waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I can't believe that I, a progressive liberal Dem, am the one shouting loudest about government waste. 648320[/snapback] Our mind control experiments are almost complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Our mind control experiments are almost complete. 648331[/snapback] Holy Cow! All this time I've been waiting for the Bush Surveillence Drones to invade my privacy, when I should have been looking out for the Libertarian Mind Control beams. That explains the recent urge to hoard guns and tear up my IRS form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Whether or not he's opposed to their use doesn't take away from the fact that as they currently stand, wrt reliability and efficiency, they aren't worth the money. 648320[/snapback] And where are you getting that from? Because I KNOW it's not coming from what you linked to, because that's not what it said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 And where are you getting that from? Because I KNOW it's not coming from what you linked to, because that's not what it said. 648368[/snapback] From the link: "UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] remain very costly to operate and require a significant amount of logistical support as well as specialized operator and maintenance training," Skinner said. "Operating one UAV requires a crew of up to 20 support personnel. OBP [Office of Border Patrol] officials mentioned that the cost to operate a UAV is more than double the cost of manned aircraft, and that the use of UAVs has resulted in fewer seizures." Skinner said the Hermes UAV cost $1,351 per flight hour, and the Hunter UAV cost $923 per flight hour. The cost figures include operation and maintenance costs, and the salaries and benefits of the crew needed to keep them in the air. The UAVs can stay in the air for up to 20 hours at a time. Skinner added that 90 percent of the responses to sensor alerts resulted in "false alarms" because the sensors were reacting to road traffic, trains and animals. "Our analysis indicates that OBP agents are spending many hours investigating legitimate activity because the sensors cannot differentiate between illegal and legitimate events," Skinner said. 90% false positive is unreliable. Costing twice as much as what they currently use is not worth the money. Unreliable for twice as much money is inefficient. You're completely right, though. Those are my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 From the link:90% false positive is unreliable. Costing twice as much as what they currently use is not worth the money. Unreliable for twice as much money is inefficient. You're completely right, though. Those are my words. 648379[/snapback] By that definition, no new technologies should ever be considered, because at their inception, they are always more expensive than tried and true (and fully depreciated) legacy systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 By that definition, no new technologies should ever be considered, because at their inception, they are always more expensive than tried and true (and fully depreciated) legacy systems. 648386[/snapback] Damn those Wright brothers, anyway. A couple hundred feet? What's up with that? Should have stuck to bicycles. I'm in favor of using whatever we have, and make it better as it gets better. Spend money on stuff that isn't 100%? Anyone want to discuss a laser powered fusion reactor research device somewhere out in the desert? More than a billion over budget and may never work? Oh well, that's energy independance related. Can't spy on anyone shooting a bb sized target with a hundred laser beams with a three billion dollar flashlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 By that definition, no new technologies should ever be considered, because at their inception, they are always more expensive than tried and true (and fully depreciated) legacy systems. 648386[/snapback] Considered, or purchased and implemented? Why would you pay that kind of money for anything that is going to fail 9 times out of 10 when you take it out of the box? And they want to use it for border "security"? If unmanned drones are the wave of the future for patrolling the US border, then by all means consider how this new technology could be used legally. But why should the US taxpayers pay for them before they get to the stage where their reliability and effectiveness is more in line with their cost? Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe nine out of ten false positives is acceptable for something that costs twice as much money as what's already in place. What the hell do I know? You tell me why this is a stupid question to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Considered, or purchased and implemented? Why would you pay that kind of money for anything that is going to fail 9 times out of 10 when you take it out of the box? And they want to use it for border "security"? If unmanned drones are the wave of the future for patrolling the US border, then by all means consider how this new technology could be used legally. But why should the US taxpayers pay for them before they get to the stage where their reliability and effectiveness is more in line with their cost? Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe nine out of ten false positives is acceptable for something that costs twice as much money as what's already in place. What the hell do I know? You tell me why this is a stupid question to ask? 648413[/snapback] Care to explain what's already in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Damn those Wright brothers, anyway. A couple hundred feet? What's up with that? Should have stuck to bicycles. 648401[/snapback] The difference being that no commercial airlines showed up to purchase a flying bicycle until it could be proven that it could get people to where they wanted to fly to better than 9 times out of 10. You guys are twisting the argument. How is demanding a product exceed some level of competency before purchasing it standing in the way of innovation? Why not just implement Reagan's Star Wars missle defense system? That should work great in about 100 years. Why are you standing in the way of innovation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Care to explain what's already in place? 648420[/snapback] Manned one's, Bill. Just going by what the guy from DHS said in the report. "UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] remain very costly to operate and require a significant amount of logistical support as well as specialized operator and maintenance training," Skinner said. "Operating one UAV requires a crew of up to 20 support personnel. OBP [Office of Border Patrol] officials mentioned that the cost to operate a UAV is more than double the cost of manned aircraft, and that the use of UAVs has resulted in fewer seizures." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The difference being that no commercial airlines showed up to purchase a flying bicycle until it could be proven that it could get people to where they wanted to fly to better than 9 times out of 10. You guys are twisting the argument. How is demanding a product exceed some level of competency before purchasing it standing in the way of innovation? Why not just implement Reagan's Star Wars missle defense system? That should work great in about 100 years. Why are you standing in the way of innovation? 648429[/snapback] Nice double twist. Please tell me the possible commercial applications for unmanned drones, and whether those applications will be large enough to justify the large cost of their early stage development. Never mind the question of whether you think it's a good thing for national or any security standpoint, for this technology to be field tested and implemented outside DoD purview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Damn those Wright brothers, anyway. A couple hundred feet? What's up with that? Should have stuck to bicycles. I'm in favor of using whatever we have, and make it better as it gets better. Spend money on stuff that isn't 100%? Anyone want to discuss a laser powered fusion reactor research device somewhere out in the desert? More than a billion over budget and may never work? Oh well, that's energy independance related. Can't spy on anyone shooting a bb sized target with a hundred laser beams with a three billion dollar flashlight. 648401[/snapback] 90% false positives is pretty damn bad to implement in an actual production environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Manned one's, Bill. Just going by what the guy from DHS said in the report. 648435[/snapback] So more sorties, exposing more people into harms way, and oh, questionable whether or not the military can legally run the sorties. Hummm...... seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Have you considered running for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 90% false positives is pretty damn bad to implement in an actual production environment. 648439[/snapback] Shall we examine that 90% number? I take it you didn't read the PDF either, or selected soundbites from it. If we listen to ABC News & germboy, you'd guess that the drones are responsible for 90% negatives. Using sample ICAD data, we determined that more than 90 percent of the responses to sensor alerts resulted in “false alarms,” something other than illegal alien activity, such as local traffic, outbound traffic, a train, or animals. On the southwest border, only two percent of sensor alerts resulted in apprehensions, and on the northern border, less than one percent of sensor alerts resulted in apprehensions. Seems that false alarms are generated by "sensor alerts." So what are they? ISIS Equipment• Sensors, primarily seismic and magnetic, buried in the ground, provide primary remote detection capability. When a sensor detects activity, alerts are sent via radio transmission to an OBP sector or station communications center. According to OBP, there are more than 11,000 sensors along the northern and southwest borders. Sensors are part of the first line of a layered border security strategy. Sensor technology is the most widely used as well as the easiest and least expensive to install and maintain. Yup, those 90% falsies are all due to expensive high tech stuff up in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts