"...Certain aspects of representative government can end up posing serious problems. And so, we might be a healthier democracy if we were a slightly less democratic one."
-Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director
"...Certain aspects of representative government can end up posing serious problems. And so, we might be a healthier democracy if we were a slightly less democratic one."
-Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director
Is this something that you disagree with? I don't disagree with it, per se. The Citizens United case is a perfect example of where this opinion could be applied.
radical animal rights activists are listed as terrorists.
OMG! Stop the fucking presses.
If they're burning down housing developments, wrecking building equipment, and firebombing research labs, they are terrorists.
Pretty sure a lawyer as great as you could also argue that they are freedom fighters and deserving of millions in cash and surface-to-air missiles! Bombs for bunnies!
radical animal rights activists are listed as terrorists.
OMG! Stop the fucking presses.
If they're burning down housing developments, wrecking building equipment, and firebombing research labs, they are terrorists.
Pretty sure a lawyer as great as you could also argue that they are freedom fighters and deserving of millions in cash and surface-to-air missiles! Bombs for bunnies!
Do you object to ... the use of a drone to fly over and see if they were armed vs. using a manned police helicopter?
I seriously object to you equating those two very different things. I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
Please explain the major difference between using a manned helicopter to fly over this property to see if they were armed vs. an unmanned drone with a camera used for the same exact purpose other than the helicopter pilot could be shot down and killed?
When the sheriff originally approached their property on land they were met by the family armed to the hilt.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'm totally against some kinds of drones too
drone 1 (drn)
n.
1. A male bee, especially a honeybee, that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. Its only function is to mate with the queen bee.
2. An idle person who lives off others; a loafer.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
All the drone did was provide a video that showed the suspects were unarmed.
Beats the hell out of having a shootout with them as they wouldn't let the police on their property and pointed guns at them.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
All the drone did was provide a video that showed the suspects were unarmed.
Beats the hell out of having a shootout with them as they wouldn't let the police on their property and pointed guns at them.
Greenwald summarizes my thoughts on this much better than I could in the link I provided. On a level of importance this story is probably a 1 out of 10. I am not trying to convince anyone that drones should not be used, just asking for some discretion and that fundamental changes to law enforcement be vetted with the citizens.
But I'm here, so I'll bite.
What type of small minded, incompetent police force sees those two things as the only options? The sheriff originally went on their property without a warrant and without permission. They asked him to leave. He came back with a drone. I have seen no mentions anywhere of any type of search or arrest warrant. In America for police to search a citizen's property they need a warrant. A very specific warrant that outlines exactly what is being looked for and where they can look.
Drones cannot read warrants. Drones look everywhere. This is not lawful. Drones store and transmit data that has not been authorized on the warrant. From 2 miles up that is a lot of data. It doesn't take a network administrator (me) to understand that no network is ever secure. Intercepting this police data is trivial for anyone motivated. Especially when compared to breaking into a police facility and removing something physical.
Where do you draw the line? How many drones should Nelson County, ND, population 3,126 have at their disposal? How many drones should be flying over Chicago, New York, Dallas or Portland to keep your children safe from terrorist pot dealers and cow stealers? How low does it have to be before it is considered being on private property? Does using heat sensitive cameras on homes violate the expectations of privacy clause? The police have a civilian review board, will one be created for robots? I, for the past 3 years have had a police camera across the street pointed directly at my front door. How is this legal? If Emma Goldman were alive today would you support Barack Obama assassinating her with a sky robot? Maybe just have one follow her around at all times and shoot bean bags at her when she steps out of line?
How did we ever survive the lawless, terror filled times we lived in before drones? How will using more drones help the police when their main obstacle is the massive distrust surrounding their history of excessive force?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Looks like punk ass Obama is going to go back on his word and sign this bullshit into law.
Drones cannot read warrants. Drones look everywhere. This is not lawful. Drones store and transmit data that has not been authorized on the warrant. From 2 miles up that is a lot of data. It doesn't take a network administrator (me) to understand that no network is ever secure. Intercepting this police data is trivial for anyone motivated. Especially when compared to breaking into a police facility and removing something physical.
There's nothing remotely 'unlawful' about this. If you owned a private plane there is no law whatsoever to prevent you from flying over this guy's ranch and photographing it. Not to mention that Google Earth has already done it and posted it to the internet for all to see.
And if the Police have somebody who is vaguely competent doing the encryption, intercepting this data would be next to impossible.
I agree that the use of drones in law enforcement is a dicey issue that needs to be looked at closely, but let's proceed from facts and not hysteria.
If you owned a private plane there is no law whatsoever to prevent you from flying over this guy's ranch and photographing it. Not to mention that Google Earth has already done it and posted it to the internet for all to see.
Sure there is. As long as the bounds of property have been defined correctly. When drones come into the picture this creates a huge mess and needs to be rewritten. The current law label's trespassing as being at an "unreasonable height." Obviously this needs to be readdressed with these new technologies. However, in my mind the expectation of privacy clause takes precedent especially considering in this situation the people were indoors and scanned with thermal imaging.
Comments
Seems Republican Senators are angry that 2 new ships will be named for Cesar Chavez and Medgar Evers.
-Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director
Is this something that you disagree with? I don't disagree with it, per se. The Citizens United case is a perfect example of where this opinion could be applied.
Agreed re: Balko
OMG! Stop the fucking presses.
If they're burning down housing developments, wrecking building equipment, and firebombing research labs, they are terrorists.
Pretty sure a lawyer as great as you could also argue that they are freedom fighters and deserving of millions in cash and surface-to-air missiles! Bombs for bunnies!
I'll leave that argument to the ACLU.
No.
Terrorists kill people.
Do you object to them being arrested or the use of a drone to fly over and see if they were armed vs. using a manned police helicopter?
You just make this shit as you go along don't you?
Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
I seriously object to you equating those two very different things. I personally object to the use of drones anywhere ever.
Please explain the major difference between using a manned helicopter to fly over this property to see if they were armed vs. an unmanned drone with a camera used for the same exact purpose other than the helicopter pilot could be shot down and killed?
When the sheriff originally approached their property on land they were met by the family armed to the hilt.
That's a bit of an extreme position to take, IMO.
I object to the use of binoculars, anytime, anywhere.
I'm totally against some kinds of drones too
drone 1 (drn)
n.
1. A male bee, especially a honeybee, that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. Its only function is to mate with the queen bee.
2. An idle person who lives off others; a loafer.
How about a Sherlock Holmes-like monocle?
I'll take that chance in a world where sending in a robot to handle a civil dispute over a few cows wondering across property lines is seen as the best option.
All the drone did was provide a video that showed the suspects were unarmed.
Beats the hell out of having a shootout with them as they wouldn't let the police on their property and pointed guns at them.
Ever?
Sounds like the least intrusive option to me.
Sounds like the least intrusive option to me.
Greenwald summarizes my thoughts on this much better than I could in the link I provided. On a level of importance this story is probably a 1 out of 10. I am not trying to convince anyone that drones should not be used, just asking for some discretion and that fundamental changes to law enforcement be vetted with the citizens.
But I'm here, so I'll bite.
What type of small minded, incompetent police force sees those two things as the only options? The sheriff originally went on their property without a warrant and without permission. They asked him to leave. He came back with a drone. I have seen no mentions anywhere of any type of search or arrest warrant. In America for police to search a citizen's property they need a warrant. A very specific warrant that outlines exactly what is being looked for and where they can look.
Drones cannot read warrants. Drones look everywhere. This is not lawful. Drones store and transmit data that has not been authorized on the warrant. From 2 miles up that is a lot of data. It doesn't take a network administrator (me) to understand that no network is ever secure. Intercepting this police data is trivial for anyone motivated. Especially when compared to breaking into a police facility and removing something physical.
Where do you draw the line? How many drones should Nelson County, ND, population 3,126 have at their disposal? How many drones should be flying over Chicago, New York, Dallas or Portland to keep your children safe from terrorist pot dealers and cow stealers? How low does it have to be before it is considered being on private property? Does using heat sensitive cameras on homes violate the expectations of privacy clause? The police have a civilian review board, will one be created for robots? I, for the past 3 years have had a police camera across the street pointed directly at my front door. How is this legal? If Emma Goldman were alive today would you support Barack Obama assassinating her with a sky robot? Maybe just have one follow her around at all times and shoot bean bags at her when she steps out of line?
How did we ever survive the lawless, terror filled times we lived in before drones? How will using more drones help the police when their main obstacle is the massive distrust surrounding their history of excessive force?
Link/source?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/indefinite-military-detention-defense-bill-citizens_n_1146181.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/print/
There's nothing remotely 'unlawful' about this. If you owned a private plane there is no law whatsoever to prevent you from flying over this guy's ranch and photographing it. Not to mention that Google Earth has already done it and posted it to the internet for all to see.
And if the Police have somebody who is vaguely competent doing the encryption, intercepting this data would be next to impossible.
I agree that the use of drones in law enforcement is a dicey issue that needs to be looked at closely, but let's proceed from facts and not hysteria.
Sure there is. As long as the bounds of property have been defined correctly. When drones come into the picture this creates a huge mess and needs to be rewritten. The current law label's trespassing as being at an "unreasonable height." Obviously this needs to be readdressed with these new technologies. However, in my mind the expectation of privacy clause takes precedent especially considering in this situation the people were indoors and scanned with thermal imaging.