Drones

[#1Townie]

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...arrant-140851/

[Ghost]

Surprise?

[salsashark]

They're watching you...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...es-on-us-soil/



Now let's just see which side the gov really cares about...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...le+Feedfetcher


Actually, the armed drones are tuned to only detect, identify and target individuals with a propensity for skittles and snapple. So, are you safe?


Oh, and IBT this entire thread gets blanketed in tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists...

[Ghosty]

"It's also worth noting that HOUSE REPUBLICANS declined (they voted down) to amend the NDAA protecting U.S. citizens from indefinite detention without charge, representation, or trial."

Huge thread with a ton of recent links about this subject (Drones vs. Americans), while circumventing the Constitution, privacy, warrants, etc.:

http://forums.coloradoracing.net/ind..._1#entry942048

CYCLEMONKEY WILL LIKE THIS PIC. Nice Obama emblems, LOL:



Next up?...

[SNAFU]

Well I'm not a big believer in the freedom of privacy. If there is a drone on every street corner maybe dumb shits will stop cutting me off while commuting specially if they have ASM. Rather deal with a drone than stupid people.

[asp_125]

You are already on security cameras half a dozen times every day: gas stations, offices, malls, stores, intersections.. etc. Privacy is only an illusion. What's a few more drones?

[Ghost]

"It's also worth noting that HOUSE REPUBLICANS declined (they voted down) to amend the NDAA protecting U.S. citizens from indefinite detention without charge, representation, or trial."

Huge thread with a ton of recent links about this subject (Drones vs. Americans), while circumventing the Constitution, privacy, warrants, etc.:

http://forums.coloradoracing.net/ind..._1#entry942048



Next up?...

Technology is neither good nor evil, technology used against a country's citizens for no reason other than to pad corporate pockets while destroying any remaining vestiges of Freedoms and Rights is an abuse of that technology and is definitely immoral.

But, we're fucked since we've no power to change anything...

[tecknojoe]

It's illegal to use military assets to spy on americans on US soil, so is any of this usable in court?

and do you really think they care what time you farted or cleaned your bong? No, they are after bigger shit.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It's in a blog so it MUST be true!

Well, I have an issue with spying on people, but if it's a view available to the public, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Now, if you're on the 2nd or higher floor in an apt. building and the drone see what cannot be seen from the ground etc., now I have a problem. As mentioned, the feds have no interest in when you farted or cleaned your bong. A lot of nasty crimes and their criminals are caught on video, so I'm actually for cameras in public places.

[salsashark]

It's illegal to use military assets to spy on americans on US soil, so is any of this usable in court?

and do you really think they care what time you farted or cleaned your bong? No, they are after bigger shit.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...

[tecknojoe]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...

damn extremist hippies

[Zach929rr]

Well I'm not a big believer in the freedom of privacy. If there is a drone on every street corner maybe dumb shits will stop cutting me off while commuting specially if they have ASM. Rather deal with a drone than stupid people.

Hope you get hit by a truck.

[salsashark]

You are already on security cameras half a dozen times every day: gas stations, offices, malls, stores, intersections.. etc. Privacy is only an illusion. What's a few more drones?

Technology is neither good nor evil, technology used against a country's citizens for no reason other than to pad corporate pockets while destroying any remaining vestiges of Freedoms and Rights is an abuse of that technology and is definitely immoral.

But, we're fucked since we've no power to change anything...

+1 on the above

How many times have you heard about the police using security footage from privately owned cameras?

Do you have any frequent shopper discount cards? What do you ACTUALLY think they're for? Do you think the stores really care about offering you the best deal? Nope, they are for purchase tracking and trending so they know what to stock. Hear about the dad who found out his teenage daughter was pregnant because target sent her a bunch of prenatal stuff after data mining her purchases?

Is your company tracking how often you're on the CSC?

Geico wants to give you a discount for tracking your automotive habits? Do you think it's to truly benefit you? Or do you think it may just be that you've given them the telemetry and an excuse to deny that accident claim?

How do you think Google posts live traffic conditions? It's because your android smart phone is sending info back to them constantly. So next time you side step a red spot on the map, thank you're fellow smartphone owner. And this is probably the least offensive thing Google does with your data.

Privacy? what's that.

[Ghosty]

It's illegal to use military assets to spy on americans on US soil, so is any of this usable in court?

I'm curious too, as to the validity of the things mentioned in that blog/article:

New documents obtained from the US military by CBS news in Los Angeles reveals that the United States military is using drones to conduct aerial surveillance operations over US soil, which by itself is illegal with a few exceptions. Once the military collects this data it is then being shared with law enforcement agencies that normally would be required to obtain a warrant to collect such information.

Normally these agencies would be required to obtain a court warrant to be able conduct such surveillance operations on their own behalf. But since the information is being provided by a 3rd party who gained access to the information that was not required to obtain a warrant law enforcement agencies are able to use surveillance with military drones as legal loophole to circumvent the Constitutional protections that prevent such practices.

The document contains vague language that permits use of military drones in to assist local, state and federal law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”

The document also outlines in vague terms conditions which allows the Air Force to share intelligence information collected by military drones during routine operations with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

In any of these cases the 4th Amendment Protections Against illegal search and seizure and 5th amendment Due Process violations are being committed illegally by law enforcement and the military.

[Ghost]

+1 on the above

How many times have you heard about the police using security footage from privately owned cameras?

Do you have any frequent shopper discount cards? What do you ACTUALLY think they're for? Do you think the stores really care about offering you the best deal? Nope, they are for purchase tracking and trending so they know what to stock. Hear about the dad who found out his teenage daughter was pregnant because target sent her a bunch of prenatal stuff after data mining her purchases?

Is your company tracking how often you're on the CSC?

Geico wants to give you a discount for tracking your automotive habits? Do you think it's to truly benefit you? Or do you think it may just be that you've given them the telemetry and an excuse to deny that accident claim?

How do you think Google posts live traffic conditions? It's because your android smart phone is sending info back to them constantly. So next time you side step a red spot on the map, thank you're fellow smartphone owner. And this is probably the least offensive thing Google does with your data.

Privacy? what's that.

Don't forget the RFID chips in everything--including your new Electronic Passport, your soon-to-be-required "Real ID" citizen card and nearly every product you buy anywhere.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/realid.asp


Back to drones:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinio...nes/index.html

Editor's note: Rand Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
(CNN)

-- When assuming office, every government official must take an oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. Since 2010, I have made that my mission in Congress. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not upholding nor abiding by the Constitution -- in fact, this administration is going to great lengths to continually violate it.

Its most recent transgression involves the use of domestic drones.
These small drones are to be used as a crime fighting tool for law enforcement officials. But is unwarranted and constant surveillance by an aerial eye of Big Government the answer?

In a memorandum issued by President Barack Obama's secretary of the Air Force, the stated purpose of these drones is "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information ... and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."

However, flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them.

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I do not want a drone hovering over my house, taking photos of whether I separate my recyclables from my garbage.

Poll: Don't use drones for speeding tickets

When I have friends over for a barbecue, the government drone is not on the invitation list. I do not want a drone monitoring where I go, what I do and for how long I do whatever it is that I'm doing. I do not want a nanny state watching over my every move.

We should not be treated like criminals or terrorists while we are simply conducting our everyday lives. We should not have our rights infringed upon by unwarranted police-state tactics.

I have introduced legislation into the Senate that restates the Constitution.

This bill protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of these drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy by forcing the government to honor our Fourth Amendment rights.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the use of technology. But like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, a warrant needs to be issued to use drones domestically.

The police force should have the power to collect intelligence; however, I believe they must go through a judge and request a warrant to do so. The judicial branch must have some authority over drones, as they do with other law enforcement tools.

My bill will restate the Fourth Amendment and protect American's privacy by forcing police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.

There are some exceptions within this bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, the government must have probable cause that led them to ask for a warrant before the use of drones is permitted.

If the warrant is not obtained, this act would allow any person to sue the government. This act also specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this act can be admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil or regulatory action.

Allowing domestic drones to act as spies for the government is a complete violation of our basic right to personal privacy.

Unrestricted drone surveillance conjures up images reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" -- a totalitarian police-state. According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

I am sure our police force had good intentions with their suggested drone policies, but do they understand the consequences? Do they realize that they are allowing the government to act as the eye in the sky?

By infringing upon our rights and watching over our every move, the government is not going to protect us, but they will push us one more step closer to completely losing our Fourth Amendment rights. My bill will protect individual privacy against governmental intrusion by these drones and establish a balance by requiring judicial action and allowing protection in court.

I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will agree with this bill. Each and every one of us took the same oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act does just that.

But, again, there isn't shit we can do about any of this. Orwell's 1984 has gone from cautionary tale to government playbook...

[SNAFU]

Hope you get hit by a truck.

Right back at ya. Drones and the operation of cost so much money, they are not going to be used for surveillance against the majority of people who complain about them. But I have nothing to hide. Besides certain backgrounds checks for even a C clearance are way more revealing than a drone.

[tecknojoe]

I'm curious too, as to the validity of the things mentioned in that blog/article:

They are not supposed to have any information unless it was collected by accident or with a warrant.

They don't just fly drones and look for bad guys then hand shit over to the police

[Ghosty]

Rand Paul has endorsed corporatist rich-people-worshipper Romney. Probably to the chagrin of Ron Paul who is actually a decent fellow. Rand Paul is now considered a traitor by much of the TeaParty, after this latest endorsement. Rand also recently publicly admitted "It would be an HONOR to be a VP under Romney-Tard".

He might say he is against drones over the U.S., BUT he also stands behind Romney, who historically is all about national security at the expense of privacy. RomTard has stated this publicly many times in interviews, he is pro-Drone. Interesting...

[Ghost]

Drones and the operation of cost so much money, they are not going to be used for surveillance against the majority of people who complain about them. But I have nothing to hide. Besides certain backgrounds checks for even a C clearance are way more revealing than a drone.

Costs come down, and can always be justified by "public safety" until they do. Besides, we aren't necessarily talking about Predator/Reaper drones, drones can be as cheap as any of the Quadrocopter variants ($259 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Parrot-AR-Dron.../dp/B003ZVSEN6)

Once we're sliding down the slippery slope, any drone can be justified.

Why pay for a single CSP officer and his car (or the CSP planes) to ticket one person at a time when you can have a single drone fly along ticketing everyone who's speeding, check everyone's tags, check whatever they want as they fly over? Why not have drones hovering over every Rockies game looking for any/every possible violation? Why not hook it all into facial recognition software and monitor who's where, doing what and when?

Background Checks are voluntary--you agree to submit to the BC to get your clearance, or you refuse and you don't take the job. Either way, it's consensual on your part.

Continual surveillance without warrant, purpose, or just cause is simply monitoring the population for the sake of monitoring the public.

I think your naivety is overwhelmed only by your shortsightedness in how this will be abused.

They are not supposed to have any information unless it was collected by accident or with a warrant.

They don't just fly drones and look for bad guys then hand shit over to the police

Because it won't be easy to say it was "by accident" that you observed X when you just happen to be flying over and monitoring everything?

[TinkerinWstuff]

They need drones to patrol the highways of rural NE, SD,WY etc where people like me drive at go to jail speeds for hours on end because there is nothing and no one out there to hurt.

[Ghost]

Rand Paul has endorsed corporatist rich-people-worshipper Romney. Probably to the chagrin of Ron Paul who is actually a decent fellow. Rand Paul is now considered a traitor by much of the TeaParty, after this latest endorsement. Rand also recently publicly admitted "It would be an HONOR to be a VP under Romney-Tard".

He might say he is against drones over the U.S., BUT he also stands behind Romney, who historically is all about national security at the expense of privacy. RomTard has stated this publicly many times in interviews, he is pro-Drone. Interesting...

Flip-flopper?

[TinkerinWstuff]

I have often wondered why they don't issue toll both speeding tickets. The time at each booth is stamped so it is a no brainier to know your average speed.

[Ghost]

I have often wondered why they don't issue toll both speeding tickets. The time at each booth is stamped so it is a no brainier to know your average speed.

From what I understand, it's only due to the fact that the 3rd party that owns or operates the toll roads (e470 or the New York State Thruway for examples) lack the authority of the police to issue tickets.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/ezpass.asp

[SNAFU]

Costs come down, and can always be justified by "public safety" until they do. Besides, we aren't necessarily talking about Predator/Reaper drones, drones can be as cheap as any of the Quadrocopter variants ($259 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Parrot-AR-Dron.../dp/B003ZVSEN6)

Once we're sliding down the slippery slope, any drone can be justified.

Why pay for a single CSP officer and his car (or the CSP planes) to ticket one person at a time when you can have a single drone fly along ticketing everyone who's speeding, check everyone's tags, check whatever they want as they fly over? Why not have drones hovering over every Rockies game looking for any/every possible violation? Why not hook it all into facial recognition software and monitor who's where, doing what and when?

Background Checks are voluntary--you agree to submit to the BC to get your clearance, or you refuse and you don't take the job. Either way, it's consensual on your part.

Continual surveillance without warrant, purpose, or just cause is simply monitoring the population for the sake of monitoring the public.

You're naivety is overwhelmed only by your shortsightedness.




Because it won't be easy to say it was "by accident" that you observed X when you just happen to be flying over and monitoring everything?

A. No need for the jabs, its called being civil.
I'm looking at it as to be cost effective for surveillance, a drone will need to sweep a large perimeter and a Quadcoptor will not achieve that because the of the size. Now if your saying that there will be mini drones flying around everywhere, are they being operated? Does every drone have an operator or are they on a gps surveillance loop. Well even the latter still needs an operator and both need technicians for maintenance. Operators and Techs mean need payed. What's the range on the camera? General rule of thumb, if someone knows they are being watch then they won't dick around. Beyond that, multi target facial recognition and target designation from a far enough distance that they will not be heard? Science Fiction as of now. Now if you want to pick out a single target I get that, there's contracts out for that tech right now but it will be awhile. Next we should get precogs from minority report and make arrests before they happen. When I see the military w/ the tech first I might change my tune.

My statement about background checks meant that you can reveal much more by doing a search on somebody(which many employers do today) than a drone. Yes they are voluntary but a credit check alone reveals much.