I'm a bit old-fashioned, I suppose, I'm not a great fan or advocate of technology as a whole, so that's certainly a factor in my opposition to these plans. I'm not so old-fashioned that I cling to the past and the many stale ideologies, I don't consider myself old world at all, however, there are some things, visions of the future, that I'm uncomfortable with and concerned about. Drones are one of those things, in their various forms - military, commercial and personal use - that I think are a very bad move. The thought alone of seeing these ugly, clinical, even threatening, scraps of metal and plastic hovering through our skies isn't a pretty one. The image is terribly dystopian - well, it's hardly utopian. Add to that the dangers - sure, 'like everything else' - the potential for criminal use, and their invasive nature (being that they have cameras attached to them). Personally I believe the introduction of these drones is a convenient way of monitoring us further, stepping up on surveillance. Trust it to be the corporations, the industrialists. As with most of their plans, they have more than one purpose. If there's an economical way to make these work for e-commerce and phase out the middle-men courier services then of course that's going to be one of the main priorities, but it doesn't seem like such a stretch to me that they'll be intended to act as surveillance. Many of us have read or at least are familiar with the themes of popular sci-fi and dystopian novels, such as George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' or Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' to name two of the most recognised, while many more believe these to be mere works of fiction - that there is no truth, no inside knowledge on the part of the authors - and indeed they're taught that way. Not that the educational system can be blamed for that, they could hardly be taught as anything but fiction, that would be sensationalist, hysterical. At least they're still in the curriculum, not yet burned à la Fahrenheit 451. Such a future as painted in these two novels particularly, despite being largely different in their vision (one being of repression, the other of indulgence - with much the same outcome from the perspective of the ones in control), is half-expected, anticipated, or quipped about. Does anyone ever question, though, how such authoritarian plans are set into motion? They don't just occur overnight, do they. On the topic of surveillance, CCTV was first introduced on a small-scale to monitor specific activities, events and for commercial purposes. Oh and for the safety of citizens, of course. Before you know it, it's everywhere. Forget civil liberties; 'I have no doubt we will hear some protest about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for so-called liberties of that kind,' said prime minister John Major, 1994. Government propaganda circulated that same year in the pamphlet form of CCTV: Looking Out For You, textbook 'we care' nonsense. Yes, CCTV has its uses and maybe, just maybe, there has been a reduction in crime. Or at least a reduction in the fear of crime. Where next? If a government proposed tomorrow to roll-out remote-controlled surveillance, or - a step greater - Orwellian 'telescreens', there'd be an uproar. People may be dulled down, but not yet that much. Such plans have to be integrated slowly, justifications given (or not given, as the case may be). And if civilians; good little citizens; morons will join in the fun, what better, with idiotic inventions such as Google Glass or the Apple Watch. Logically, this is how a government would (and does) operate. It's easier to slip something into the public's awareness than to announce it boldly, as this does away with the freedom or influence of individuals reacting and protesting against something that's well established. As for 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'Brave New World', if you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed that there are elements from both literary pieces well underway in our society, already deeply ingrained. The sexualisation of children, for example, as shown in Huxley's pseudo-prophecy should be frighteningly apparent in the media and through pop culture. It's possibly the most clear and startling of the changes of our age, to say nothing of whether it's right or wrong. After all, if our leaders say something is so, then it is so, and a lot of emphasis is placed on such guidelines whether they're adhered to or not. Anyway, drones...
'We've got the opportunity to bring in drone surveillance - these cute little helicopters, sort of Minority Report - how best to disguise our ulterior motives?'
'Oh, well, I don't know. We could stick a parcel on it! Y'know to keep the average consumer contented, as long as he gets his parcel he'll be satisfied!'
'You know, Bob, that's not such a bad idea.'
'Well, gee, thanks Bill.'
Rather than the presence of ordinary helicopters circling neighbourhoods and attempting to see through windows, which could still happen, it makes more sense they'd utilise drone technology to do it for them, it's less personal, relinquishing responsibility.
Surveillance or not, they're still invasive, intrusive. And there's bound to be cases of them malfunctioning and dropping from the sky, destroying property, and crushing people, there's always that. The greater concern on everyone's mind is that the technology gets into the wrong hands - affordable knockoffs (let's call them) are already sold on the market to the same sorts of civilians mentioned earlier. There have been several low-key news reports on their reckless use, harassment of the public. The potentiality for criminal activities should be obvious. Introduce a license, how much good would that do? Crimes may be carried out from a safe distance, tracking down those responsible could prove difficult, with little to no evidence against the culprit(s) to bring them to justice, and it allows for a fantastically unhurried retreat. Delinquents looking out for delinquents is often how it seems. These reported cases of reckless behaviour so far are neat though - maybe they serve a purpose - as the public turn to the authority for safety, a solution, that stricter laws may be enforced; stop the chaos, we'll settle for the corporate, mature and methodical use of drones if they really must be a part of our future.
People aren't pleased with the developments though, let me tell you. I'm very glad about that. But thousands of comments across websites aren't an accurate portrayal of public opinion. What's the likelihood that most people don't have an opinion, don't have a care? Either way, my fantasy of individuals shooting drones from the sky is becoming a reality. It was a headline yesterday, 'Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard', and I was cheered up by it. Today, though, it looks like he's going to be charged, so he's bound to be a lot less cheerful. I don't want to include a link to the news article, you can find several online, the gentleman's name is William Merideth. Many people seem to have been supportive of his actions which is reassuring. The drone was going around like a headless chicken before coming down over his property and so he took a few shots at it and took that cyborg downtown. He had every right to. I think it was three or four men that jumped out of a vehicle shortly thereafter and asked if he was the son of a bitch that shot their drone. How very American, ha. I'm imagining jocks. But yes, how very American and futuristic. Drones as pets. Don't leave your drone alone in a hot car. A drone isn't just for Christmas, it's for life. But anyway, it's unfortunate if Mr Merideth has to pay for his actions. Good on him for looking out for his kids and taking action in the first place though. This should be a lesson, let this be a lesson. With this case and others - there was another report just recently of someone shooting a neighbour's drone out of the sky - it's just practice, sonny - they will try to send a message to us through the media, that there's a price to pay, a punishment - so what. We must make it known to them that we aren't willing to put up with this garbage. The same goes for a device like Google Glass, anyone wearing those ridiculous glasses (it certainly doesn't help matters that they look like lab safety goggles) is asking for a smack. That's intentionally ambiguous, might get smacked bottoms for being the naughty, naughty people that they are. Honestly, watch this space.
