Posted on 12/04/2013 3:16:07 AM PST by markomalley
So I'm going through my RSS feeds this morning for good articles to post and come upon this headline: Montreal deploying fleet of facial recognition drones for 24/7 patrols
Sounds believable...one of my little hot-button topics (government surveillance)...so I check it out:
The City of Montreal has purchased 24 drones to help law enforcement tackle crime as authorities look to cut back the police force over the next 15 years. The UAVs, equipped with facial recognition technology, will be armed to ‘neutralize suspects’.
"It's very exciting," the chief of police for the borough where the drones will be deployed, Montreal North, told the Montreal Journal.
“The drones with facial recognition will patrol the streets 24 hours a day. Officers will interrogate individuals suspected of criminal acts or searched directly through speakers and microphones installed in the drones, but soon they can be provided with equipment capable of neutralizing on-site suspects pending the intervention of the law enforcement officers. It will mainly make our work less dangerous, especially in an area where there is a lot of social tension," he said.
When asked to clarify what intermediate weapons would be used to neutralize suspects, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) spokesman told the Journal the "UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] will carry persuasive technologies, but non-lethal types, such as electric shock, blinding or paralyzing gases."
He added that despite the seemingly limitless possibilities, only non-lethal weapons are “intended for the moment.”
The drones are set to be deployed in early 2014.
Despite the $400-million- plus price tag, the drones are intended to facilitate cutbacks to the city’s police force in line with nationwide efforts to curb RCMP expenditures, which have doubled over the last 15 years.
Employing new technology to create leaner, more effective law enforcements agencies, however, remains highly contentious.
A late 2012 poll conducted by Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada, found the public remains ambivalent about the use of UAVs in policing.
While 80 percent of those surveyed were comfortable with police use of drones for search-and-rescue missions, only 40 percent of respondents felt comfortable with their use in monitoring public events or protests.
"Considering the capacity of UAVs for surreptitious operation, the potential for the technology to be used for general surveillance purposes, and their increasing prevalence -- including for civilian purposes -- our office will be closely following their expanded use," the report read.
"We will also continue to engage federal government institutions to ensure that any planned operation of UAVs is done in accordance with privacy requirements."
The RCMP national drone is thus far in its infancy, with Mounties promising they will not be used to conduct general surveillance against the public.
A study released last month – Unmanned Eyes in the Sky – found that despite drones’ potential benefits for police, law enforcement had not "sought feedback from the public on how UAVs should or should not be adopted as a tool to serve the public interest," the Canadian Press reported.
The study concluded that in light of the "potential for intrusive and massive surveillance," Canadians needed reassurances that they would not be spied on once the drone program goes into full swing.
Note the inflammatory quote in the middle of the article: "UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] will carry persuasive technologies, but non-lethal types, such as electric shock, blinding or paralyzing gases." Wow! I can't believe I'm reading this! I mean, it's Canada not the States, but still...unbelievable!!!
I note that the site references an article in the Journal de Montréal, so I decide to check out the original article (since RT does tend to be a little fast-and-loose with facts and embellishes a bit -- and that one quote about "non-lethal" persuasive technologies is pretty sensational).
So I go to the site and try to look for the article: it's not there.
Where I finally found the article that was the source for the RT piece was at a satire site: The Journal of Mourreal -- appears to be a Quebec answer to "the Onion."
In case there's any question about it being a satire site, this is from the "about" page for the Mourreal Journal:
Le Journal de Mourréal est né il y a plus de 60 ans alors que les pères fondateurs du journal avaient été persécutés pendant des siècles au travers des États-Unis pour leur croyance en un dieu mormon et sodomite. Mais un évènement en 1947 viendra changer la donne: l’incident de Roswell. Jack Rubbenstock, fondateur de l’Ordre Mormon des Sodomites Lucifériens, tombe alors sur une découverte extraordinaire en plein désert du Nouveau-Mexique: un extra-terrestre ayant miraculeusement survécu au crash de son engin spatial ! C’est alors que les deux entités cosmiques réunies par le destin et maintenant armés de fusils plasmiques établiront ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui le Journal de Mourréal: «Le choix numéro 1 des sodomites depuis l’incident de Roswell !».
So Obama is an alien!
Not just that, but he's a mormon, sodomite, Luciferian alien! (well, maybe not a mormon)
A mormon sodomite luciferian god, hmm?
Why on earth would you think that a journal founded by someone with such beliefs is not serious and reliable?
What is an RT? For that matter, what is an RSS? At least the article you quote gives definitions of acronyms when first using them.
RT = RT.COM (Russia Today)
RSS = Real Simple Syndication (a technology to aggregate information from a number of different news sources...it allows one to scan a whole bunch of info really quickly without having to go to individual sites)
Sorry, I would have thought that most folks here were familiar with the terms, else I would have defined them.
Substitute Moslem for Mormon and you have described a few of this presidents uniquities- Moslem Communist sodomite negroid Luciferian alien.
Thanks.
It used to be that satire like this would be completely beyond the pale.
I could see how a non-native English speaker could lose perspective on satire - especially when that satire is articulating a goal that governments seem to actually be striving for.
Plenty of satire articles have fooled people here, and have been parroted by US media as well.
I’ve never heard of either one. A standard convention in any writing is to define acronyms or initials the first time they appear.
As I stated in #6, I thought they were both pretty common terms around here...
A standard convention in any writing is to define acronyms or initials the first time they appear.
Including for commonly-known terms?
So in other words, I should define the following?
Working in the contracts world (where such things are mandatory), it can get a bit ridiculous fairly quickly.
So now I have to define “standard convention” for you?
I personally couldn't possibly care less what you do one way or the other.
Then why bother to inform me of your vacant mind?
Why don't you get out of your ivory tower and take your critique to somebody who really gives a rats ass what you say or think. Perhaps, since you like wasting bandwidth trying, in vain, to school me...maybe you should try teaching a bit. Or, perhaps, try writing some for a living.
GPO Style Manual:
not generally known should be followed in the text by the spelled-out forms in parentheses the first time they occur; in tables and leaderwork such explanatory matter should be supplied in a footnote. As the printer cannot rewrite the copy, the author should supply these explanatory forms.
My response #6: Sorry, I would have thought that most folks here were familiar with the terms, else I would have defined them.
Shipley Proposal Guide:
2. Define acronyms, initialism, and other potentially unfamiliar abbreviations the first time you use them in each major section of your document.
My response #6: Sorry, I would have thought that most folks here were familiar with the terms, else I would have defined them.
Why don't I grow up? I clarified and apologized the first time that somebody brought it to my attention that they were unfamiliar with the terms. ("Sorry" = an apology).
Why don't I grow up? Why don't you kiss my fat ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.