Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

States and drones

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
February 6, 2013 7:53:34 AM

Earlier, a few of us mentioned the use of drones by the BO admin over Nebraska.
We also have mentioned the use of them to kill American terrorists on foreign soil without trial.
As our liberties errode, all for "good" reasons, several states have decided to act.
Heres some good reasons right here:
The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions.

The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and 295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications.

“We need a list so we can ask [each agency], ‘What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?’ ” Ms. Lynch said.

“Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates,” said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-t...

This world is getting smaller, now I ask you, should we move quicker to make it so?
If you live in the city, youre most likely to try and "get away", if you dont, you know how this feels already.
Whats your thoughts here?

We just may find "fly over country" just isnt so
Heres a list of states possibly eliminating or banning outright their usage at the state level, and so far doesnt address the fed level
California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma.

More about : states drones

February 6, 2013 3:07:41 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Fine, if they want to wage war on the American people then arm yourselves with information. Lots more at link.


How to kill UAVs

The UAVs have two alternative systems for communication.

Line of sight radio :
In the military C-Band 500 - 1000 MHz that can be jammed with simple spark-gap radio

Satellite communication :
In the Ku-Band between 10.95 - 14.5 GHz, and the satellite can be jammed.
The Uplink-Band to the satellite is 13.75 - 14.5 GHz
The Downlink-Band from the satellite is 10.95 - 12.75 GHz
And you should jam the Uplink frequencies with a jammer directed at the satellite.

http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb907234/killuav.htm


Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.
February 6, 2013 3:34:23 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.

Now, would that be legal, and would the BO admin let you?
Related resources
February 6, 2013 3:34:48 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Or you could just shoot it down. That works too.


With an AR15, or a shotgun with a pistol grip? Lol.

I also have a feeling that OMG jamming is old news, I could be wrong but I hope our military has defenses against jamming. I imagine its not too hard to program a drone to hit the interfering signal if communication is dropped. Or the drone just logs the location of the signal and returns to base. Then they bomb the interfering signal.


This link is very significant

That drone can take 1.8 billion megapixel video, 5,000 hours of it. That means from almost 18,000 feet they can track the position of everyone in 15 square miles.

Or who knows maybe the Giant prepper compound they are building out west will incorporate This technology.
February 6, 2013 3:44:11 PM

Time to fire up the PEMP, or, Portable EMP heheh
February 6, 2013 4:24:54 PM

wanamingo said:
With an AR15, or a shotgun with a pistol grip? Lol.



Somebody would use ex-Soviet/Pakistani/Iranian shoulder-fired SAMs bought on the black market, just like every two-bit terrorist does. Illiterate half-blind terrorists without two nickels to rub together manage to get them and shoot down U.S. Black Hawks with them. That's how it would be done in the real world.
February 6, 2013 4:35:52 PM

Iran claims to have shot down 4 drones in the last few years, the only drone with video and photo evidence is the one they "Shot Down' or "retrieved" after it crashed.

Can anyone else find examples of drones lost in combat, specifically of being shot down?

The reason I ask is because a quick google search of some older model SAM rockets told me that a significant portion of surface to air missiles would have difficulty hitting a target over 10,000 -13,000 feet. And none could reach over 18,000.

And then I imagine DARPA has a fleet of stealth drones that are flying very high, and are more than likely protected against EMP. EMP shielding is actually pretty easy to make.

Not to throw cold water on this discussion but I think taking down a drone would be very very difficult. Your best bet would be to try and jam continually from multiplt locations, until you made it New Mexico and slapped the mouse out of the pilots hand.
February 7, 2013 12:15:28 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Earlier, a few of us mentioned the use of drones by the BO admin over Nebraska.
We also have mentioned the use of them to kill American terrorists on foreign soil without trial.
As our liberties errode, all for "good" reasons, several states have decided to act.
Heres some good reasons right here:
The FAA has issued hundreds of certificates to police and other government agencies, and a handful to research institutions to allow them to fly drones of various kinds over the United States for particular missions.

The agency said it issued 313 certificates in 2011 and 295 of them were still active at the end of the year, but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing the FAA to obtain records of the certifications.

“We need a list so we can ask [each agency], ‘What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?’ ” Ms. Lynch said.

“Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates,” said Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research center in Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-t...

This world is getting smaller, now I ask you, should we move quicker to make it so?
If you live in the city, youre most likely to try and "get away", if you dont, you know how this feels already.
Whats your thoughts here?

We just may find "fly over country" just isnt so
Heres a list of states possibly eliminating or banning outright their usage at the state level, and so far doesnt address the fed level
California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma.
Drones have their pros and cons. Attacking citizens like you say abroad like Alacki was a good thing. he was a terrorist planning to strike the U.S. and kill innocent civilians.Drones on the other hand trying to see what other civilians are doing are not .This is over reaching and being really not democratic to do this. This is invading privacy of others and i am glad other states are saying no to these actions.
February 7, 2013 12:29:48 AM

musical marv said:
Drones have their pros and cons. Attacking citizens like you say abroad like Alacki was a good thing. he was a terrorist planning to strike the U.S. and kill innocent civilians.Drones on the other hand trying to see what other civilians are doing are not .This is over reaching and being really not democratic to do this. This is invading privacy of others and i am glad other states are saying no to these actions.


I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.

@wanamingo:
There is another way to stop the drones with those missiles. Firing them at the politicians in favor of the drone spying is likely to be much more effective at stopping the drones than directly firing them at the drones. A SAM locked on a corrupt dictator's limo will render it deader than the skunk in the middle of the road. That's the big reason those kinds of weapons are illegal and why the government is talking about wanting to ban certain rifles rather than handguns in an attempt to stop crime despite the fact that the crimes they are officially trying to stop are nearly all carried out with handguns.
February 7, 2013 2:21:18 AM

Maybe we should just kill all snakes with drone strike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK-IK2h0yoo
Or maybe a few americans too, and throw in spying on your neighbor by hiring (future slots available) with a private eye in the sky
February 7, 2013 3:15:02 AM

Or
Maybe we should just waterboard the people who made it legal to use them?
Find out whos really behind it, tho it doesnt really work, but killing sure does.
It used to be, we wouldnt go after our enemies leaders, and certainly not picking them out specifically.
Just as isolation made this country, and kept it safe, so too does it do this for our enemy leaders, where their followers are often left with a very narrow view of the world.

We of course want this to stop, but at some point, just as we realized we couldnt realy use nukes, we approach that line again here
February 7, 2013 4:10:50 AM

I can see it now:
Eye in the sky detective agency
Offering GitMo Drones, where the "we dont need no stinking laws" is flown in the face of our constitution, and this means everyone, Liberties not required
February 7, 2013 11:45:40 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I heard in a radio interview yesterday the "drone" industry is a $33 billion a year industry. That's a lot of drones.


I would guess that it's not as many drones as you think, they are just very, very expensive. Remember the big contractors that build the drones are the same ones that led to the $600 toilet seat jokes in the '80s.
February 7, 2013 12:57:59 PM

Why would you use a surface to air missile on a limo? I don't think it would work like it does on battlefield.
February 7, 2013 2:52:57 PM

MU_Engineer said:
I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.
Totally agree!

What can not be done with man-power and associated resources is being mitigated by technology.

18,000 feet overhead and aloft for days.

Silent. Warrant-less.

For a safe and secure society.
February 7, 2013 5:58:01 PM

Let me hit you with a hypothetical.....

A small police office uses a drone to track a car during a high speed chase, keeps them from having to call in a helicopter crew, and all of the expenses that are involved....

Or to catch people poaching on private or protected lands?


Or drones to monitor after natural disasters? To hand out resources more effectively.

I built a model rocket with a camera on it, does that classify as a drone? Or really a model plane enthusiast puts a GoPro on his plane, is that a drone?

What about the Burrito Bomber or the TacoCopter?
February 7, 2013 6:57:17 PM

People live where the poachers poach, and hate poachers more than those wwho protect, as they degrade the land where those people live.
So, flying over them does as well.
Currently in Chicago, calling 911 wont bring an officer unless it meets certain criteria, which only leaves speculation, which also puts people in harms way, say someone calling on a burglary, the cops wont come, even if its their neighbors house, and the caller doesnt know if its a home invasion as example.
No war has been won without feet on the ground, period, is my point, and to throw our liberties away left and right for a "better society" is again another loss for all of us, just like killing without confirmation using drones.
If youre the prez, the guv, and you send out drones instead of making an appearance, well, ask GW about that.
As for the rocket, I too thought of that, tho in my day, the color pictures camera was too expensive, and only a friend had the B&W one.
February 9, 2013 11:17:23 PM

MU_Engineer said:
I think the cat's long since been out of the bag on that one. There have been spy satellites around for decades. I have a nice bunch of swampland in Florida to sell you if think that the government has never turned the spy satellites on U.S. citizens in the U.S. before. I completely agree with you on being happy some states are banning the drone overflights. However I realize it's only a gesture to indicate discontent with these policies rather than doing something to actually stop spying.

@wanamingo:
There is another way to stop the drones with those missiles. Firing them at the politicians in favor of the drone spying is likely to be much more effective at stopping the drones than directly firing them at the drones. A SAM locked on a corrupt dictator's limo will render it deader than the skunk in the middle of the road. That's the big reason those kinds of weapons are illegal and why the government is talking about wanting to ban certain rifles rather than handguns in an attempt to stop crime despite the fact that the crimes they are officially trying to stop are nearly all carried out with handguns.
This really sounds like double talking someone with mixed signals.What does the government really want?
February 9, 2013 11:36:43 PM

musical marv said:
This really sounds like double talking someone with mixed signals.What does the government really want?


Governments want power, period. The politicians in the government would love to be able spy on anybody they want to, namely their political enemies and rivals, in order to keep tabs on them and also dig up dirt to discredit them. Such things have happened in many other countries although not with using drones. Think of what happened in the Soviet Bloc and in China with the spying on anybody considered to not be 100% in support of the latest political policy of the government.

My comment about the cat being out of the bag with regards to spying is because we can already be spied on by the government with wiretaps, satellites, etc. Drones do not necessarily bring anything new to the table. My impression of the drone issue is that it is a trial balloon. The government wishes to increase the amount of spying it does and drones are much more visible than spy satellites and remote wiretaps. People being all ruffled about drones tells the government they ought to not push the spying issue much more right now. Also, if people don't care a whole lot about the drones, then it tells the government that they can spy a lot more on the citizenry without any real consequences.

So there are some mixed signals- but it all boils down to the government continuing to test the waters with how much power the people will let them have.
February 11, 2013 12:22:22 PM

wanamingo said:
Let me hit you with a hypothetical.....

A small police office uses a drone to track a car during a high speed chase, keeps them from having to call in a helicopter crew, and all of the expenses that are involved....

Or to catch people poaching on private or protected lands?


Or drones to monitor after natural disasters? To hand out resources more effectively.

I built a model rocket with a camera on it, does that classify as a drone? Or really a model plane enthusiast puts a GoPro on his plane, is that a drone?

What about the Burrito Bomber or the TacoCopter?
Maybe the small police office call the next town over or contact the State Police and engage in some good old fashion coordinated police tactics. Maybe they decriminalize marijuana possession and rather than locking up every black person with less than 2oz use the police resources to go after the growers. Maybe we get rid of FEMA altogether (as Sandy has prove to NJ & NY they are completely incompetent) and let the States coordinate with each other to secure the supplies and resources to address natural disasters.

There are other alternatives that local and State police have available than drones to achieve the same result.

I'm just saying...
February 11, 2013 5:40:43 PM

It wasnt FEMA, it was Bushes fault, until.....it was needed again
February 11, 2013 7:13:58 PM

And, dont forget, this is the newer and improved FEMA as well
February 11, 2013 7:44:59 PM

Have you guys ever seen an AC130?

Like in real life (None of the MW2 of Bf3 chit gents)
February 11, 2013 7:57:13 PM

Yes, on the ground, didnt board it tho
February 12, 2013 12:58:31 AM

MU_Engineer said:
Governments want power, period. The politicians in the government would love to be able spy on anybody they want to, namely their political enemies and rivals, in order to keep tabs on them and also dig up dirt to discredit them. Such things have happened in many other countries although not with using drones. Think of what happened in the Soviet Bloc and in China with the spying on anybody considered to not be 100% in support of the latest political policy of the government.

My comment about the cat being out of the bag with regards to spying is because we can already be spied on by the government with wiretaps, satellites, etc. Drones do not necessarily bring anything new to the table. My impression of the drone issue is that it is a trial balloon. The government wishes to increase the amount of spying it does and drones are much more visible than spy satellites and remote wiretaps. People being all ruffled about drones tells the government they ought to not push the spying issue much more right now. Also, if people don't care a whole lot about the drones, then it tells the government that they can spy a lot more on the citizenry without any real consequences.

So there are some mixed signals- but it all boils down to the government continuing to test the waters with how much power the people will let them have.
I think the government is getting much to powerful now and interfering to much in our personal business.We do not need another China now.That country cannot be trusted at all.
February 12, 2013 1:57:25 AM

Problem is marv, weve reelected a president whos solutions rely on government, unlike JFK, who said the exact opposite
February 12, 2013 11:30:58 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Yes, on the ground, didnt board it tho


The only reason I ask is because technically AC130's have committed far more targeted killings than drones. Full disclosure, Im looking for the source for that again, but AC130's have been used since Vietnam, and are still used to make strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can put the EXACT same equipment that a drone could carry and fly the thing at 30,000 feet.

Our government flies that plane every day somewhere in America, why not ground that? If we are so worried about privacy...

Drones definitely kill people in shady ways, but so do helicopters, AC130's, Seals, etc.

Again, Im not saying I want drones flying over my head keeping tabs on me, but realistically if you are worried about what the gov could do with drones then you should feel reassured that they could have been doing it for decades.....
February 12, 2013 11:57:08 AM

OK, a crew in a helicopter sees the men on the ground waving white flags, they land and capture, also gain good infos from them in their captivity.
Point here is, no one should be spying on me, now then or tommorrow, by any means, period.
Its also against the constitution to kill without due process, which is a declaration of war or thru the courts.
Also, its always an imperative to have a strong government, but not a military, which has brought more innovation thru government and private investments and IP than anything else.
The prez will be deciding the new internet conditions soon, without congress once again.
So, we have a group of people relying upon our government to solve many an issue, ignoring that they spy on us, or defending it, for what ever reasonings.
This group wants a large problem solving government, paints those who give the most as some kind of pariah, the rich.
Says reducing the government will cause a severe contraction within the economy, yet has no qualms about shrinking the military, where they arent even mentioning the fact of how our vets are getting shafted, by our government in things like health care, but assumes itll be better for them not serving, but wont be near as good as the government leaders have planned for themselves, all the while, the spying continues.

My guess is, if you insist on giving the responsibilities to our government, it will only grow.
My guess is, this "fairness attitude" will only divide, as it is designed to do, as it also trickles down to other things, like softdrinks, drinking, smoking etc etc.
My guess is, allowing the government in your back yard doesnt qualify that its already being done, but not in such a way that its so multifaceted it will someday include all of us, which this growing, larger and so called better approach is going to do, benefitting whom exactly currently isnt known, other than to make sure some farmers in the midwest dont pollute their groundwater, or use too much, yet the disconnect from our farmers allows for this in itself, and no, not liberal, but a Paul Harvey farmer.
Live in your cities, worry about those around you, ask big brother to protect you, ignore your own responsibilities, but dont call 911 unless its life threatening, as government is the way to go for many, as they surround theirselves with false hope, and tread down that dangerous carefree path
February 12, 2013 4:54:37 PM

wanamingo said:
The only reason I ask is because technically AC130's have committed far more targeted killings than drones. Full disclosure, Im looking for the source for that again, but AC130's have been used since Vietnam, and are still used to make strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can put the EXACT same equipment that a drone could carry and fly the thing at 30,000 feet.

Our government flies that plane every day somewhere in America, why not ground that? If we are so worried about privacy...

Drones definitely kill people in shady ways, but so do helicopters, AC130's, Seals, etc.

Again, Im not saying I want drones flying over my head keeping tabs on me, but realistically if you are worried about what the gov could do with drones then you should feel reassured that they could have been doing it for decades.....
So, what you're saying is that I should be happy the government isn't using AC130's gun ships to perform domestic surveillance?!

Comparing an AC130 to a predator drone doesn't makes it any less intrusive or illegal...
February 12, 2013 5:18:56 PM

chunkymonster said:
So, what you're saying is that I should be happy the government isn't using AC130's gun ships to perform domestic surveillance?!

Comparing an AC130 to a predator drone doesn't makes it any less intrusive or illegal...




It does not make any sense... What is a wookie doing on Endor? It just does not make sense.





Not by any means less intrusive but to think that even if enough senators and congressman block drones from flying the endgame is still the same.

If your government wants to (Currently is) spying on you they dont need drones, an AC130 has been used for this exact purpose hundreds if not thousands of times.
February 12, 2013 6:24:19 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
AC130 Specter is a gunship, not a surveillance aircraft.


Not necessarily ... My point being that an AC130 is responsible for more targeted killings than Drones. Because this is what started this whole drone memo, right? Target killings and spying, neither of those require a drone to do.

An AC130 can carry any kind of surveillance equipment you would need, and has almost 2x ceiling as a drone.

February 12, 2013 6:43:23 PM

Well, our forefathers were innept here right?
These laws are meaningless right?
Weve advanced too far and the 4th amendment simply can no longer exist right?
Things have changed too much, or so goes the argument.
Now that hopefully both sides can see accross the fence, other things will come into focus
February 12, 2013 11:20:06 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Problem is marv, weve reelected a president whos solutions rely on government, unlike JFK, who said the exact opposite
JFK was another great president who really depended on the people to say what they wanted and waited for their opinions to be heard.Obama i believe is for big government he claims he is for the people but i wonder about that sometimes.
February 13, 2013 1:11:24 PM

If the government really wanted to spy on you they could with satellites and you would never know. Not sure why you guys are getting bent out of shape over drones when it could have multiple positive uses.
February 13, 2013 1:15:33 PM

Exactly!

When the government lets you know about its "Advanced" tech, like the drone that can take 1.8 million megapixel video then you know that tech is obsolete.

So your best bet to avoid aerial surveillance is just to live in a place where the foliage is thick enough to mask your fingerprints.
February 13, 2013 5:39:33 PM

There we go, our liberties fulfilled, and having a few satellites taking a few HD images vs thousands of drones is the same, no greater loss of those liberties there for sure.
Cant believe the logic here
February 13, 2013 6:12:33 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
There we go, our liberties fulfilled, and having a few satellites taking a few HD images vs thousands of drones is the same, no greater loss of those liberties there for sure.
Cant believe the logic here


Well the government and military combined have over 200 satellites. Where are these thousands of drones? Just making stuff up at this point?
February 13, 2013 8:23:29 PM

Before attacking me and acting deft, RTFM
According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use.

The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-t...

I add that those 200 are only over our skies?
And can they also hit differing
points of altitude, and angles?
February 14, 2013 2:32:08 PM

johnsonma said:
If the government really wanted to spy on you they could with satellites and you would never know. Not sure why you guys are getting bent out of shape over drones when it could have multiple positive uses.
To be fair, drones DO HAVE legitimate uses by PRIVATE companies, i.e.; electric and gas utilities monitoring towers and pipelines, farms using them to track cattle and survey fields, Google using them to update maps, or even UPS and Fedex using the to drop deliver packages.

Then issue isn't whether drones have legitimate uses, the issue is whether the Police or Federal Government has a legitimate need to use drones for domestic surveillance. The fact that the 2008 FISA Amendments were passed and every liberty loving American didn't take to the street is bad enough, let alone being even more complacent and believing that the Police or Federal Government using drones for domestic surveillance has any positive use.

The Police and Federal Government would have us believe that no one would oppose using drones to search for a lost child (SAVE THE CHILDREN, LET A DRONE FLY FREE!), track escaped convicts, or watch pot growers. But, history has proven that new technologies eventually become routine. But as with any new technology, as the novelty has worn off, the people will begin to see the unintended consequences of using drones for domestic surveillance. And in the end, people do not want to watched all the time. We need to be wary when proponents suggest only the benefits of using drones for domestic surveillance.
Quote:
Ben Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

wanamingo said:
Exactly!

When the government lets you know about its "Advanced" tech, like the drone that can take 1.8 million megapixel video then you know that tech is obsolete.

So your best bet to avoid aerial surveillance is just to live in a place where the foliage is thick enough to mask your fingerprints.
It is a sad state of our republic when the people need to hide under the coverage of trees to stop the government from watching them live out their daily lives. When and if that day ever comes, we will already be living under the boot of tyranny.
February 14, 2013 3:41:20 PM

Not even the trees can save you from yourself.....What exactly do you think facebook does? How does a company that has a free product make billions of dollars?

I mean one of us could write an API to scrub four square check ins, facebook updates, even geolocation off certain devices.

Now lets imagine we are the most powerful government in the world. Wouldnt social networking be the FIRST place you would start data mining your citizens?

What would they have to gain by identifying OMG outhouse? Or what happens in his open air hot tub late at night... bible study right?

Something like 60% of Americans use some for of social networking, with the algorithms that government makes (Im basing this off of what advertising companies currently are doing) i bet they could find out just about anything they would need to, with no drones or cameras.

I know what you're thinking though, I dont use facebook or I dont post identifying information. But you have kids, relatives, friends that can identify you. Take it even further and I bet there is a way to tie all your traffic to your name. Potentially all your internet traffic, including from mobile devices is being logged and is tied to your real name. Phone convos are also routinely taped.

Look no further than http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacent... or http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/glimpse-r...

And that bit about ratheon is two years old, the tech is so far out of date they can openly talk about it.
February 14, 2013 4:12:48 PM

wanamingo said:
Not even the trees can save you from yourself.....What exactly do you think facebook does? How does a company that has a free product make billions of dollars?

I mean one of us could write an API to scrub four square check ins, facebook updates, even geolocation off certain devices.

Now lets imagine we are the most powerful government in the world. Wouldnt social networking be the FIRST place you would start data mining your citizens?

What would they have to gain by identifying OMG outhouse? Or what happens in his open air hot tub late at night... bible study right?

Something like 60% of Americans use some for of social networking, with the algorithms that government makes (Im basing this off of what advertising companies currently are doing) i bet they could find out just about anything they would need to, with no drones or cameras.

I know what you're thinking though, I dont use facebook or I dont post identifying information. But you have kids, relatives, friends that can identify you. Take it even further and I bet there is a way to tie all your traffic to your name. Potentially all your internet traffic, including from mobile devices is being logged and is tied to your real name. Phone convos are also routinely taped.

Look no further than http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacent... or http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/glimpse-r...

And that bit about ratheon is two years old, the tech is so far out of date they can openly talk about it.
So, what you're really saying is rather than fight to protect your 4th Amendment and privacy rights is that we should all just give up and let the Police and Federal Government disregard due process and do want they want simply because they have the technology to do it and because there is nothing the average citizen can do about it.

For all the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, I hope you do not agree with the above statement.

I'm sorry, but all keep reading is apologetic rhetoric as to why we should allow the Police and Federal Government to use drones to mitigate or disregard our civil liberties.

You're right, I don't have a Facebook account and I'm sure my identity could be tracked back using my wife's account. But this discounts the fact that Facebook is run by a privately held company which is subject to lawsuit given that corporations are considered people by law. This fact is only confirmed by the FISA legislation exempting privately held companies from legal action if and when the government does use their info to track and monitor people.

Just as when you are pulled over by the police and they ask to search your vehicle without probable cause, you have the right to say, "I do not consent to searches.", the people maintain the right to say to they do not consent to being surveilled by drones without probable cause or without a warrant to do so.
February 14, 2013 4:40:54 PM

Well of course drones shouldnt be used to spy or run surveillance on our citizens. I fully support legislation that says so.

But the conservative reaction has been completely overblown. All I was doing was pointing out the hypocrisy of fervently trying to block any and and all drones from flying while at the same time supporting warrant less wiretaps.

Seems to me to be feel good legislation, or trying to appear heavy handed on drone surveillance when the real issues lie elsewhere.

It would be like banning jet-packs tomorrow because someone could hold a camera in it.
February 14, 2013 4:55:27 PM

There goes my RC helicopter with the camera on it.....
February 14, 2013 5:25:00 PM

johnsonma said:
There goes my RC helicopter with the camera on it.....


In Texas I believe they are trying to pass bill to ban any kind of recording equipment fro hobbyist aircraft, even balloons.

That means doing this would be illegal.

Its really just a matter of time before some redneck puts a handgun on a quadcopter.
February 14, 2013 8:06:32 PM

Maybe have some way to look up the drones and see where they are at? Some sort of tracking system to allow people to know when and where these drones are? Also, maybe their use could be limited to only the more vital uses? Instead of screaming bloody murder because technology is evolving, why not think of reasons to limit it from violating freedoms?
February 15, 2013 12:41:46 PM

wanamingo said:
Well of course drones shouldnt be used to spy or run surveillance on our citizens. I fully support legislation that says so.

But the conservative reaction has been completely overblown. All I was doing was pointing out the hypocrisy of fervently trying to block any and and all drones from flying while at the same time supporting warrant less wiretaps.

Seems to me to be feel good legislation, or trying to appear heavy handed on drone surveillance when the real issues lie elsewhere.

It would be like banning jet-packs tomorrow because someone could hold a camera in it.
I gotcha, we're actually on the same page, I agree with what you're saying.

I especially agree with the conservative reaction and am most likely guilty or furthering that perspective. However, I do not agree with the warrant-less wiretaps and do not understand why people aren't freaking out over the 2008 FISA Amendments, I called my Congressman and Senator to vote against them, to no avail.

I don't agree with Obama that often, but this is one of those cases where I am right there with him...Obama: Americans need to know more about drone program...
Quote:
But he (Obama) admitted the public needs to know more about how the drone program works and what rules the administration is following.
!