With general elections potentially on the horizon, a new party has burst onto the Israeli political scene. On Wednesday, the Pirates party, which according to Haaretz "champions ‘the freedom to copy' and ‘the pirating sector,'" applied for recognition as an official political party. Despite its name, the group, led by former Green Leaf party member Ohad Shem-Tov, does not belong to the Pirate Parties International (PPI) movement, which already has an established Israeli chapter. Though the party refuses to speak to non-pirate media, its goals apparently "range from the radical to the delirious," including "the freedom to divide and copy" and social justice.

Shem-Tov is best known for forming the Green Leaf Graduates party before the 2009 following his expulsion from the original Green Leaf party, which campaigns to decriminalize marijuana. During the general elections that year, the Green Leaf Graduates forged an unlikely alliance with the Holocaust Survivors Party, running advertisements espousing a hybrid pro-cannabis, pro-survivors benefits platform.

The Pirate creed is not new to the region. In 2011, PPI member Slim Amamou joined the new Tunisian cabinet as State Secretary of Youth and Sports. PPI also made significant inroads in May, when it won 8 percent of votes in Schleswig-Holstein during German general elections, in addition to 8.9 percent in Berlin and 7.4 percent in Saarland. Israel's Pirate party stands somewhat of a chance, since the election threshold for the Knesset is just 2 percent, but whether it asks the Jewish state to recognize the Church of Kopimism is more of a gamble.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has been attacked by malware once again.

In a letter made public on the company's website, an unknown Iranian scientist from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) contacted Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer of Finnish security company F-secure, with an unusual complaint:

I am writing you to inform you that our nuclear program has once again been compromised and attacked by a new worm with exploits which have shut down our automation network at Natanz and another facility Fordo near Qom.

According to the email our cyber experts sent to our teams, they believe a hacker tool Metasploit was used. The hackers had access to our VPN. The automation network and Siemens hardware were attacked and shut down. I only know very little about these cyber issues as I am scientist not a computer expert.

There was also some music playing randomly on several of the workstations during the middle of the night with the volume maxed out. I believe it was playing 'Thunderstruck' by AC/DC.

Though Hypponen emphasized that he could not verify the attacks upon the Natanz Uraniam enrichment facility in central Iran and Qom, a research facility in an undisclosed section of southwest Tehran, he confirmed that the message was sent from the AEIO.

This sort of thing isn't new. Music was central to 1989's Operation Just Cause, in which U.S. soldiers attempted to coerce Panamanian President Manuel Noriega from his refuge in the Vatican embassy by blaring loud music at the building. In documents acquired by the National Security Archives,  U.S. SOUTHCOM admitted U.S. military DJs took requests, blaring a playlist that ranged from Paul Simon's 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover, Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run and, an apparent favorite, AC/DC's You Shook Me All Night Long.

More recently, U.S. Psychological Operations Company (PsyOps) admitted to the use of heavy metal in Iraq as a mechanism to break uncooperative prisoners' resistance. Similar use was reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross as part of the "cruel, humane and degrading" treatment of Guantanamo inmates. Though the use of heavy metal as a interrogation technique incited some record companies to warn that the United States may owe royalty fees, military officials were unrepentant. As one officer told Newsweek, "Trust me, it works."

Though hackers have been known for their peculiar brand of humor -- see Stuxnet's hidden biblical references -- the use of music in cyber warfare is certainly a new development. Start planning your requests.

This weekend marks the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan - a time of fasting, prayer, and self-reflection throughout the Muslim world. But every year, it starts with a controversy: Ramadan begins with the sighting of the first sliver of the new moon, and religious authorities often differ by a day on when that occurs.

In Syria, the predominantly Sunni opposition is embroiled in a guerilla war with the Alawite-led government. The two sides disagree over the future of their country, the nature of the conflict -- and, you guessed it, the start of Ramadan.

"The Syrian National Council announces ... Friday is the first day of Ramadan, unlike what was declared by the regime," read a statement released by the umbrella opposition group. President Bashar al-Assad's government, meanwhile, declared the holy month would begin on Saturday.

There's a regional political dimension at play here: Most of the Arab world's Sunni states -- such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan -- have announced that Ramadan begins on Friday. These countries have been largely supportive of Syria's rebels. Meanwhile, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon's Shiite community -- whose political leaders have supported to the Assad regime -- are starting Ramadan on Saturday.

Just another example of how what seems to be a purely theological dispute quickly becomes politicized amidst Syria's bloody sectarian conflict.

Former New Hampshire governor and White House Chief of Staff-turned-campaign surrogate John Sununu was doing okay on a conference call with reporters, responding to the Obama campaign's suggestions that Mitt Romney may be guilty of a felony on his tax returns by quipping that Obama "comes out of that murky political world in Chicago where politician and felony has become synonymous." Then things went a bit off the rails: 

The call was organized by the Romney aides to attack Obama's handling of the economy, which they argue has stifled job creation and hurt small business. But Sununu seemed to take it a step further, telling reporters at one point, "I wish this president would learn how to be an American."

Asked to clarify his statement, Sununu walked it back, explaining he only meant that he wished Obama would adopt the "American formula" for creating businesses and introducing an environment where "entrepreneurs can thrive."

In other words, Washington now gets to remember who John Sununu is again.

Some Saudi Arabian officials evidently feel that their country's blasphemy laws -- which treat transgressions as hudud or "limits," punishable by death in some cases -- are too lax. To rectify the situation, Reuters reports, the government is considering regulations that would criminalize insulting Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, or elements of Sharia:

'Within the next two months the Shura Council will reveal the outcome of study on the regulations to combat the criticism of the basic tenets of Islamic sharia,' unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter told al-Watan, adding that there could be ‘severe punishments' for violators.

Criticism penalised under the law would include that of the Prophet, early Muslim figures and clerics, it said.

‘The (regulations) are important at the present time because violations over social networks on the Internet have been observed in the past months,' the sources said.

What is puzzling about the proposed legislation is what exactly it would fix. Saudi officials do not appear to be hamstrung by the existing legal apparatus, which metes out justice to dozens of blasphemers every year. In fact, Saudi Arabia does not have a written penal code, meaning that judges already issue rulings based on their own interpretation of the Quran. According to Human Rights Watch, this means that blasphemy convictions are often handed down without citing any legal basis. As a result, anything from insulting the Prophet's companions, to mocking religion, to using "un-Islamic terminology" can get you convicted of blasphemy.

Nor do lily-livered judges or lenient sentences appear to be the problem. In 2008, for instance, a Mecca appeals court upheld the death sentence for Sabi Bogday, a Turkish national, who allegedly insulted God during an argument. In this case, the testimony of two witnesses was sufficient to prove Bogday's guilt.

In fairness, the death sentence for blasphemy seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Flogging and prison time are more standard fare. Still, the argument that Saudi's blasphemy laws are too permissive has a decidedly hollow ring.

Indeed, even the charge that social media is frustrating efforts to keep Saudi's public sphere squeaky clean doesn't hold water. Earlier this year, for instance, 23-year-old Hamza Kashgari was extradited from Malaysia to stand trial after he tweeted that the Prophet was merely inspirational, not divine.

The rumblings in Riyadh, then, probably have less to do with a perceived blasphemy pandemic and more to do with the ruling family's growing unease with the democratic transitions now underway in much of the Middle East. Although it has historically kept the country's religious establishment at arms-length, recent events have convinced the royal family to take all the support it can get. 

Chinese officials were caught Friday with their pants down when the Defense Ministry was forced to admit in a brief statement that a naval frigate has run aground on the south eastern edge of the Spratly Islands-- waters the Philippine government claims exclusive sovereignty over. Though Chinese officials described the vessels as a part of a "routine patrol," the incident comes barely two weeks after the Philippine navy openly accused China of ignoring a June agreement to withdraw all ships from the Scarborough Shoal.

The "thoroughly stuck" grounded ships are an awkward reminder of growing aggression in the South China Seas. The Chinese Defense Department's terse statement Friday was released just as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) failed to reach agreement in Phnom Penh and were forced to conclude without a customary joint statement for the first time in the organization's 45 year history.

ASEAN officials are pointing fingers at China, who they accuse of blindly denying the organization the right to mediate maritime disputes and refusing to participate in negotiations at large. In open defiance of the five-day conference, 20 Chinese shipping vessels returned to disputed waters Wednesday as state papers reminded readers that "China is considering setting up a legislative body in the newly established city." Accordingly, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's seemingly innocuous proposal that "the nations of the region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threat, and without use of force" was decried by the state-run China Daily as "inappropriate and ill-intentioned."

Despite the harsh words, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi concluded the conference by reminding reporters of his desire to establish "win-win" U.S.-Sino cooperation. Considering their actions this week, it might be at another state's loss.

Baghdad's electricity ministry pulled a strange PR stunt this week by displaying the American newscaster Katie Couric's face on giant billboards around the city in a campaign to "inspire the people to imagine a better future for electricity," according to a ministry spokesman.

Intermittent electricity supply means that Iraqis battle summer temperatures upwards of 108 degrees Fahrenheit without much air conditioning. Power outages are commonplace, and most Baghdad homes have working electricity for only a few hours a day.

The ministry's latest plan to prevent public uproar over the country's sub-par infrastructure (which erupted last spring and forced the electricity minister to resign) was to post unauthorized images of NBC's former "Today Show" host Katie Couric throughout Baghdad that advertise the ministry's public relations television program. While the smiling face of "America's Sweetheart" may not be doing much to solve the electricity problem, it seems to be lifting spirits.

"It doesn't give me hope about electricity, but I like to see her beautiful face," a fruit vendor told New York Times reporter Tim Arango. Another storeowner said, "Whoever comes here says, ‘What a beautiful face,' She's smiling. She gives us hope."

The ministry spokesman explained that they had considered depicting an Iraqi new caster on the banner, but her family opposed displaying her image publicly. The picture of Couric, who is wearing a brown blazer in the advertisement, was acceptable for the streets of Baghdad. The ministry's web designer said her image was "perfect for us."

Unlike U.S. television star Kim Kardashian, who sued Old Navy for using a model that merely looked like her, Katie Couric jokingly told reporters she was going to call her lawyer. After describing the move as "bizarre and slightly amusing," Couric said on a more solemn note, "It did remind me of how serious the situation still is there."

Clausewitz said that war is the extension of politics by other means. But Jordanian lawmaker Mohammed Shawabka seems to have gotten the Prussian military strategist's aphorism backwards. Last Thursday, Shawabka heaved his shoe and then pointed a pistol at Mansour Seif-Eddine Murad, an activist-turned-politician, during a televised debate about the violence in Syria.  

According to The National the two traded insults on Jordanian satellite channel Jo Sat with Murad eventually accusing Shawabka of being an Israeli Mossad agent and a thief. Violence quickly ensued:

"Mr Shawabka first threw his shoe at Mr Murad, who dodged with aplomb, and then pulled a gun. Furniture toppled as the show's host desperately tried to separate the two. And then the credits rolled."

On Monday, the AP reported that Shawabka is being investigated for his role in the altercation. According to the prosecutor, Shawabka could be charged with attempted murder, although he conceded that this might be a stretch because the lawmaker did not appear to take aim at his fellow debater.

The incident ups the ante on what has already been an exciting year for parliamentary antics. In June, former parliamentarian and current spokesman for Greece's far-right Golden Dawn party Ilias Kasidiaris grew enraged during a televised debate and threw water on one guest before slapping another in the face repeatedly.

Only weeks before a brawl broke out in the Ukrainian parliament as lawmakers debated a bill that would make Russian and "equal" second language in roughly half of the country. According to the New York Times, the so-called "rumble in Rada" left "at least one opposition politician bloodied and saw another flipped over a banister, his feet flailing in the air."

In Lebanon things heated up in November 2011, when Mustafa Alloush from the pro-Western Future Movement and Fayez Shukr of the Baath Arab Socialist Party began hurling insults-as well as water, pens, and paper-across the table from one another as they discussed the Syrian situation on Lebanese TV.

In recent years, parliamentarians have also come to fisticuffs in Somalia, Iraq, South Korea, Czech Republic, Bolivia, Argentina, Georgia, Taiwan, and Nigeria, To my knowledge, however, Jordan's Mohammed Shawabka is the only one who has introduced firearms into the mix.   

Imagine, for a moment, that 9/11 Commission Report Chairman Thomas Kean had begun his group's historic 2004 report by blaming the country's inability to prevent the attack on the "ingrained conventions of American culture" -- perhaps on the arrogance of American exceptionalism or fear of government regulation. At the very least it would have provoked a serious media backlash if not yet another investigation.

That's essentially what Japanese government science advisor Kiyoshi Kurokawa did in his preface to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report, released late last week. He writes: 

What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” 
Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: 
our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with
the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result may well have been the same. [...]

Many of the lessons relate to policies and procedures, but the most important is one upon
which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply.

The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset
that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society.

Parts of the report are quite damning, particularly on the cozy relationship between government nuclear regulators and the plant operators. But Kurokawa's lament about Japan's culture of conformity is provoking something of a backlash -- at least from international observers. A Bloomberg editorial describes it as "both a copout and a cliche" noting that "notwithstanding the commission’s lament about the Japanese “reluctance to question authority,” many citizens did repeatedly express their concerns about the safety of Tepco’s Fukushima reactors, including legislators from Japan’s Communist Party. Their warnings were brushed aside by those in power." FT Tokyo correspondent Mure Dickie worries that turning Fukushima into a specifically Japanese failure risks making other countries complacent, just as regulators were too quick to bruch aside the Chernobyl meltdown as a typical case of Soviet sloppiness that could never repeat itself in Japan's more technologically and bureaucratically advanced system. 

These are good points, though it also seems worth pointing out that Kurokawa's "any Japanese person could have made the same mistakes" argument is itself a kind of groupism. Ironically, a report urging Japan to reflect on the lack of accountability in its bureaucratic culture seems to strive not to hold anyone in particular accountable.

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law, a group commissioned by the U.N. Development Program and chaired by former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has released a study today on the role laws and institutions play in the spread of HIV/AIDS. Among other topics, the paper discusses the countries where transmitting HIV is considered a crime. It seems the United States is something of a trendsetter and global leader on that front:

Some jurisdictions apply existing general offences to criminalise HIV exposure or transmission—from “administration of a noxious substance” (France) to attempted homicide (United States). Others have chosen to target HIV: the frst HIV-specific laws were passed in the United States in 1987, with many other nations quickly following suit. The past decade has seen a new wave HIV-specific statutes, notably in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America.

Today, countries and jurisdictions in every region of the world have promulgated HIV-specific criminal statutes. They’re on the books in 37 of the 50 United States; in Africa, 27 countries have them; in Asia and the Paci?c, 13; Latin America, 11; and Europe, 9. According to a 2010 report by the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+), at least 600 people living with HIV in 24 countries have been convicted under HIV-specific or general criminal laws, with the greatest numbers reported in North America.

The report condemns these laws, arguing that they discourage people who are HIV-positive from participating in treatment programs or disclosing their status to their sexual partners.

The the United States convicts more people for transmission of HIV than any other country -- under various state laws -- followed by Canada. Surprisingly, Sweden and Norway have the highest conviction rate compared to HIV-positive population. The global comission's report notes that "In Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, migrants and asylum seekers have been disproportionately represented among those prosecuted for HIV transmission and exposure.

Denmark suspended its law criminalizing HIV transmission in 2011. The law had been one of the world's harshest, making it a crime to expose another person to risk of HIV infection, even if there was no actual transmission.

The reports also cites laws that stigmatize gays, transgendered people, migrants, prisoners, and drug users as contributing to the spread of HIV.

Remember when political demonstrations over democracy, Tibet, and Sudan turned the Beijing Olympics into an embarrassment for the Chinese government? Or when South Africa's treatment of Zimbabwean refugees, high levels of violent crime, and construction delays turned the 2010 World Cup into a black eye for the Rainbow Nation? Yeah, me neither. But I do remember when some brilliant observers of international news were predicting it.

Just a few weeks ago, Ukraine's co-hosting of the 2012 Euro Cup seemed like a PR disaster in the making, with European leaders threatening to boycott over the treatment of jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and fans being warned that they might "come home in a coffin" because of crime and racist attacks. 

As it turns out, the event that wrapped up in Ukraine yesterday went just fine. Daisy Sindelar of Radio Free Europe writes:

But in the end, no significant racist incidents or crowd violence were reported in Ukraine, and the final is now on the books, with Spain soundly defeating Italy 4-0 on July 1.

On June 30, Michel Platini, the president of UEFA, the European football federation, praised Ukraine and Poland for hosting "a fantastic tournament which has been unique in its atmosphere and will remain in our memories.”

To be sure, the tournament had its flaws, with overpriced lodging and poorly organized transportation discouraging many potential tourists from contemplating trips to matches in Kyiv, Lviv, Donetsk, and Kharkiv.[...] The high price of accommodations remained one of the biggest turnoffs throughout the tournament, despite efforts by officials to coax hotel operators down from rates that soared above $1,000 a night.

But the price gouging had an unexpected consequence, prompting hundreds of Ukrainians to offer their homes up for free as part of a grassroots, online initiative that included volunteer translation services and impromptu city tours. Dmytro Vasylev, the founder of the Friendly Ukraine initiative, says the project helped alleviate fears among ordinary Ukrainians that the government, in its ham-fisted response to the pricing and racism scandals, would squander what was meant to be a golden opportunity for the post-Soviet country.

If anything, it was co-host Poland, a democracy and staunch U.S. ally, that had a more problematic Euro, with predictable riots accompanying a Russia-Poland match in Warsaw. As for racism, it was Spain and Croatia, not the host countries, that were fined after their fans made monkey noises at Italy star Mario Balotelli.   

Despite all the talk of boycotts, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, all attended yesterday's final -- along with Belarus' Aleksandr Lukashneko. (There were a few appearances by world-renowned topless protest collective FEMEN.)

None of this changes the fact that Tymoshenko is in jail. (Her appeal was postponed last week until after the end of the tournament) or the democratic rollbacks and attacks on the free press under President Viktor Yanukovych. 

But I think we can fairly say at this point that -- absent a major boycott like the 1980 Moscow Olympics -- international sporting events don't do much to focus international attention on political conditions in a country. There's been talk that the 2014 Sochi Games might shine a light on political conditions in Putin's Russia and the violence in the North Caucasus, but at this point my money is on the Kremlin, the IOC, and the corporate sponsors making it work. (How they plan to hold winter games in a subtropical environment is another question.)

Russia and Israel may disagree on Iran's nuclear program, but President Vladimir Putin and his entourage of about 400 officials and businessmen were warmly welcomed by Israeli officials during the Russian leader's first visit to the country in seven years. Upon arriving at the Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Putin was "greeted by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and an IDF honor parade." Later that day, he attended an inauguration ceremony in Netanya for a memorial to the Soviet Red Army soldiers killed in World War II, along with Lieberman, President Shimon Peres, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Speaking at the ceremony, Putin invoked Russia as both war and peacemaker:

"Russia who so greatly helped win the war is the same Russia that can help peace in the Middle East."

Putin's agenda also included a stop at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, but his 24-hour tour made plenty of time for discussions with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and other Israeli officials about regional issues -- namely Iran and Syria. According to the New York Times, Netanyahu said during a joint news conference that he and Putin "agreed that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran ‘presents a grave danger first of all to Israel, and to the region and the world as a whole.'"

Israeli officials, however, are not optimistic that their concerns will have any impact on Russian policy:

"Let's not exaggerate. It is a very brief visit," said a senior Israeli official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for reasons of diplomacy. He added, "Do not expect any major breakthrough."

According to Haaretz, Peres did not have much success with Putin at the state dinner that evening:

"President Shimon Peres pressed Putin further, asking that he ‘raise his voice' against a nuclear Iran. Putin responded by saying that Russia has a ‘national interest' to secure peace and quiet in Israel but did not elaborate further."

Despite the fact that talks about Iran were more process than substance, Tel Aviv University Russia specialist Boris Morozof notes that Israel and Russia do have "points of common interest," such as military technology, counterterrorism, and Israel's vast natural gas fields.

On Tuesday, Putin traveled to the West Bank, where he "inaugurated a Russian cultural and language center in Bethlehem" and toured the Church of Nativity. He also told President Mahmoud Abbas that Russia "has no problem recognizing a Palestinian state," called his Palestinian counterpart's position on negotiations with Israel "responsible," and referenced Israeli unilateral actions as "not constructive."

Russia is a member of the Middle East Quartet, a diplomatic body charged with mediating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, whose members also include the U.S., the U.N., and the EU. The Quartet has made little progress since its inception in 2002, but Abbas reportedly "called for an international peace conference to take place in Moscow."

Unfortunately, Putin's trip did not include arm-wrestling or kissing sturgeon fish, but he may have joined in some singing.

Hong Kong's Phoenix TV ran a segment on John Hickman's recent Foreign Policy article which speculates on what might happen if China ever tried to annex territory on the moon. Titled "U.S Media Hypes That China Wants to Capture the Moon; United States Space Advantage has already been Destroyed," it opens with a shot of a Chinese space shuttle, dramatic music, and a white, martian-like character reading what appears to be a space newspaper. It then features an interview with Shao Yongling, a senior colonel from the PLA's Second Artillery Command College, who explains that "sour grapes" is the reason for the article. "Because of some economic problems," America's moon landing "could be delayed indefinitely"; that China will reach the moon soon, therefore, is "very provocative to Americans.” 

One expects her to deny China's desire to control the moon, but she never does. 

A few recent headlines from the emerging world of drone politics:

Christof Heyns, the U.N.'s independent investigator on extrajudicial killings, says he is not satisfied after meeting with U.S. officials in Geneva to discuss the legal framework -- or lack thereof -- for U.S. drone strikes. "I don't think we have the full answer to the legal framework, we certainly don't have the answer to the accountability issues," he told reporters. Heyns said that he worried U.S. drone use without firm legal backing would " creates precedents around the world."

One country that may take advantage of that precedent is Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez last week acknowledged reports that his government is building its own drones with help from "China, Russia, Iran, and other allied countries.... Of course we're doing it, and we have the right to. We are a free and independent country." "Pretty soon someone is probably going to say there's an atomic bomb on the tip of it," he joked. 

Gen. Douglas Fraser, head of the U.S. Southern Command, said the drones were likely for surveillance purposes and "internal defense."

While still limited, there are increasing worries that drones could be used for "internal defense" purposes in the United States as well: 

Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican congressman from Louisiana's coastal bayou country, says constituents have stopped him while shopping at Walmart to talk about their concerns. "There is a distrust amongst the people who have come and discussed this issue with me about our government," Landry said. "It's raising an alarm with the American public."

Fear that some drones may be armed, for example, has been fueled in part by a county sheriff's office in Texas that used a homeland security grant to buy a $300,000, 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone for its SWAT team. The drone can be equipped with a 40mm grenade launcher and a 12-gauge shotgun.

Randy McDaniel, chief deputy with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, told The Associated Press earlier this year his office had no plans to arm the drone, but he left open the possibility the agency might decide to adapt the drone to fire tear gas canisters and rubber bullets.

Earlier this year Congress, under pressure from the Defence Department and drone manufacturers, ordered the FAA to give drones greater access to civilian airspace by 2015. Besides the military, the mandate applies to drones operated by private companies or individuals and civilian government agencies, including federal, state and local law enforcement.

However, these concerned shoppers will be glad to know that reports of the EPA using drones to spy on Midwestern cattle farms to check on improper manure handling -- which spread throughout the blogosphere and were even discussed by some members of Congress -- are apparently false.