The effort to normalize drone surveillance

[Android3.14]

I hypothesize that TPTB want more surveillance on us, and the hexapod propeller drones are the next step, but it will only work if people accept them. I bet there is a propaganda effort occurring to make these devices appear friendlier.
The much-publicized Amazon drone delivery package that came up in recent weeks had no purpose. Those things will never deliver packages. Why would they have that event? To make us all think the devices are gee-whiz wonderful.

I recently saw the video of the LEGO car, and it has a hexapod in the background, perhaps for filming, but it also puts the device in a non-threatening presentation (who dislikes LEGOs?) which makes us more accepting when we see it. You can see the hexapod at 1:20 on this video.

[intaglio]

1. Oh FFS

I just bought my BIL a "drone" it has a camera on board, can fly a predetermined route and will be fun for him as well as allowing him to inspect the rigging on the boat he and my sister built without going up in a sling. He will also be able to inspect the roof of the house they rent out for damage without risking his own neck or hiring someone who wants to sell him roofing services. He will be able to offer to help his friends that service. He might learn how to sneak up on wildlife and film them.

But he is part of some dark evil propaganda to "normalise" drones

[Android3.14]

2. I don't know your brother in law

What a silly response. You can sake for a fuck all day, but marginalizing people who are cautious about propaganda just makes you gullible.
Your brother in law probably doesn't torture people, but I bet he owns a board and a damp cloth. Why weren't you dismissing water boarding when media outlets started making that appear acceptable? Oh wait, I bet you were unhappy with that effort to make torture mainstream, despite your in-law's need for counter space and washcloths.
I'm hypothesizing (note that word, hypothesize) that the appearance, recently, of hexapod drones in more popular media could be an attempt to calm the fears of people concerned with an invasion of privacy.
I suppose, in order to support the hypothesis, there should be additional evidence, such as an increased use of drones by domestic law enforcement.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones
Also, lawmakers would be passing legislation to limit the use of drones by private citizens while encouraging the use by those who would benefit from that sort of propaganda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/18/can-state-laws-protect-you-from-being-watched-by-drones/
There might also be hints of a partnership between corporate and government interests to support a surveillance state.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/growing-surveillance-state-has-all-appearances-public-private-partnership
So, besides your brother-in-law's boat and roof issues (for which he may be able to use a drone for only a little while longer, until it becomes illegal), do you have anything to actually prove the hypothesis wrong?

[intaglio]

3. You have made the claim that "drones" shown in non-threatening situations are propaganda

I have shown that that claim is bovine excrement, wonderful for roses but useless for cleaning house.

The report of the ACLU just brings forward the statutory structure needed for accountable use of drones by the State and States.

The WSJ article says that there is an order in effect to open the skies to private "drones". The WSJ also reports that privacy laws will be applied to "drones". You have claimed - on no evidence at all - that "private" use of drones will be banned.

The Alternet article is concerned with surveillance by data collection, not "drones".

I read your OP as little more than paranoia based around your false perception of what "drones" are.

[Android3.14]

4. I haven't claimed anything

I am proposing an explanation for observed phenomena (note the word, hypothesis)
You haven't shown anything. Provided no data, nor offered an alternative explanation. You are just spouting off contrary nonsense for reasons only you understand at this point.
Your interpretation of the articles is just bizarre.
From the ACLU article, "Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections."
From the WSJ article "That has created new opportunities for everyone from real estate firms to oil and gas companies to PETA -- anyone, in fact, who might have use for an eye-in-the-sky, but doesn't have the money to hire a pilot and a plane. But the dawning era of cheap, private surveillance is leading a lot of states to ask how these private drones should be regulated."
Wanna bet PETA sees a restriction, but law enforcement and energy companies won't?
And your observation on the Alternet article only makes sense if you consider information a drone collects as being something other than data. Which I suppose there is a remote possibility you actually believe, but that the rest of the planet knows is wrong. Data is data.
I'm unsure what your motivation and message are here.
Are you saying that a surveillance state won't use drones to watch their own citizens? A patently silly idea.
Are you saying that a surveillance state wouldn't use propaganda in order to make the intrusion more acceptable?
Or are you saying that Amazon is really-really going to deliver packages to private homes using flying robots with multiple fast-rotating blades?
I'll admit to being paranoid about the surveillance state, but I wonder if you would admit to being gullible about what the cats are bringing to you through the Internet tubes.

[intaglio]

6. I see you do not read for comprehension

My purpose in posting was to kill the asinine conspiracy theory you have put forward as a hypothesis, that being that "drones" are being presented as not scary by being shown more frequently in non-threatening situations.

The reason you are seeing more "drones" is because there are more out there to be seen. People like them; they are more stable and quieter than old fashioned remote control aircraft or helicopters, and far easier to control. They cost much less, a reasonably configured one is less than $175. They have potential for many private uses such as checking that house or boat or that leaning tree or a power line or filming wild life or your pets or your hobbies and probably many more uses I have not thought of.

The ACLU article refers to restrictions that could be put in place, federally, to protect the general public - it has nothing whatsoever about your "hypothesis" that private UAVs will be banned.

The WSJ article merely points out that states are legislating privacy rules regarding UAVs and are not proposing a ban on civilian use. The article makes clear that the proposed federal rules will allow privately owned UAVs.

I repeat your hypothesis is nothing more than a half-assed conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your terror of the new.

[Android3.14]

7. "Toscano made it sound like something straight out of a crisis-management textbook — or Orwell"

Any good hypothesis needs experiments to prove it wrong/reinforce the conclusion. So I asked myself, if a propaganda move were in operation, it would have had roots from a year or so ago, and people would have talked about it. did a search using "domestic drone propaganda" and lookey what I found.
"After issuing a statement denouncing Krauthammer’s remarks as “irresponsible” and “dangerous,” Toscano said the AUVSI would go on the offensive against critics. While the strategy is still being shaped, Toscano made it sound like something straight out of a crisis-management textbook — or Orwell. The AUVSI wants to bombard the American public with positive images and messages about drones in an effort to reverse the growing perception of the aircraft as a threat to privacy and safety."
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/drones_new_weapon_p_r/

"Terror of the new"? I had to laugh.

[rrneck]

5. Dual use technology has always been problematic.

You know, since we sucked the marrow from bones and used them to konk each other on the heads with them. There's no need to gin up a conspiracy about it.