The spy plane story is fascinating. In 10 years’ time, there will most likely be many more of these in the air.
What happens when one crashes in someone’s yard/on their land? Do the property owners have to turn it over to the drone operators? What happens if the property owner wants to be difficult and refuses to turn over the crashed drone (or whatever’s left of it)? Let’s say there is property damage, the property is demanding compensation, and/or the drone contains sensitive information somehow.
Does it matter if the drone is owned by a public entity (university, police department, DHS) or a private company? Can a landowner refuse entry onto the property of the operators trying to recover the drone?
I promise you, what I’ve described above will be a headline story within a few years’ time.
Brian raises an interesting point. In the next few decades, police departments may begin to deploy spy planes in place of police cruisers. I welcome the idea of using unmanned aerial vehicles to observe roads for traffic problems and monitor parking lots for criminal activity. Unfortunately, the more lucrative use for them will undoubtedly be to catch speeders or observ traffic infractions, where the spy plane vendor/operator expects a share of the proceeds. This is the model that is being used to fund red light camera installation.
The problem is that public safety becomes a secondary goal behind profiting from normal (marginally illegal) activity. For example, former Congressman Dick Armey spilled the beans after he discovered that red light camera vendors were requiring police departments to shorten yellow light duration so their red light cameras were more profitable.
Health spending per capita now equals 30 percent of median income.
At what points will people begin to realize that if health care is not affordable for the majority of people individually; it certainly cannot be affordable for society collectively? To be sustainable, cross subsidies (from rich to poor and from healthy to sick) necessarily must be relatively small on average. Otherwise, the people getting gouged will revolt.
I agree with Brian and Devon about the spy drones. My guess is that some enterprising civil libertarian is already thinking about how to shoot one down.
30 percent? That’s incredible.
The spy plane story is fascinating. In 10 years’ time, there will most likely be many more of these in the air.
What happens when one crashes in someone’s yard/on their land? Do the property owners have to turn it over to the drone operators? What happens if the property owner wants to be difficult and refuses to turn over the crashed drone (or whatever’s left of it)? Let’s say there is property damage, the property is demanding compensation, and/or the drone contains sensitive information somehow.
Does it matter if the drone is owned by a public entity (university, police department, DHS) or a private company? Can a landowner refuse entry onto the property of the operators trying to recover the drone?
I promise you, what I’ve described above will be a headline story within a few years’ time.
Brian raises an interesting point. In the next few decades, police departments may begin to deploy spy planes in place of police cruisers. I welcome the idea of using unmanned aerial vehicles to observe roads for traffic problems and monitor parking lots for criminal activity. Unfortunately, the more lucrative use for them will undoubtedly be to catch speeders or observ traffic infractions, where the spy plane vendor/operator expects a share of the proceeds. This is the model that is being used to fund red light camera installation.
The problem is that public safety becomes a secondary goal behind profiting from normal (marginally illegal) activity. For example, former Congressman Dick Armey spilled the beans after he discovered that red light camera vendors were requiring police departments to shorten yellow light duration so their red light cameras were more profitable.
At what points will people begin to realize that if health care is not affordable for the majority of people individually; it certainly cannot be affordable for society collectively? To be sustainable, cross subsidies (from rich to poor and from healthy to sick) necessarily must be relatively small on average. Otherwise, the people getting gouged will revolt.
I agree with Brian and Devon about the spy drones. My guess is that some enterprising civil libertarian is already thinking about how to shoot one down.