The Channel logo

Sorry, but what civilian activity can possibly justify UAVs ?

They've lost me there - I really see absolutely no possible legal use for a UAV in civilian activity. A UAV has only one possible civilian use at this time - snooping. I realize that there are some officials that cannot help but dream of legally-backed Tom peeping on the private life of that leggy blond next door, but in truth that is morally wrong and they know it, hence this new excuse. Besides, if the use of UAVs became commonplace, methinks the bad guys wouldn't then have much trouble kitting up one of their own to spy on the goverment. How would one tell the difference ? I suppose they're all black anyway. Are we going to invent a UAV-detector, or will this be the start of anti-UAV UAVs ? A UAV weapons race, is that what we want ? That said, it'll probably happen anyway. Mankind simply cannot avoid a good chance to build something destructive.

Unless UAVs can become parcel carriers, there is simply nothing outside of a police state that can possibly justify these new SkyNet appendages. Ban them from our skies, I say.

Forums

Forgotten password

Opinion

euros_channel_money

Tim Worstall

Time to take a sniff at the coffee, perhaps
joe_tucci_emc_channel

Chris Mellor

Will they have to drag him back like last time?
chain_relationship_channel

Features

cloud_accounting
Playing the SLA long game
channel_teaser_money_top
cloud computing Fight
Applications must work for the cloud to float
Paul Cormier, Red Hat
How a Unix killer crawled from the dot-com bust