E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Eric Gay / AP
A Predator B unmanned aircraft lands after a mission at the Naval Air Station, Tuesday, Nov. 8, in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing new rules that could make it easier for law enforcement agencies to use drone aircraft in the U.S., raising concerns about privacy at a time when the aircraft are already conducting surveillance missions in some parts of the country.
The American Civil Liberties Union released a report Thursday demanding better protections against a surveillance society, “in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.”
“Our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values,” warns the ACLU report, "Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft."
The report follows a weekend story by the Los Angeles Times that detailed how the unmanned aircraft are being used in domestic law enforcement cases, and not just along the country’s borders to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers as was originally authorized by Congress in 2005.
The Times said a North Dakota county sheriff asked federal authorities to employ a drone for surveillance in a standoff with three men on a farm June 23, resulting in the first known arrest of U.S. citizens involving the spy planes in a domestic case.
Since then, the Times said, two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base have flown at least two dozen surveillance flights for local police. The Times reported the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration have also used drones in domestic investigations.
Next month, the FAA is expected to issue proposed rules that the ACLU warns could expand their use by domestic law enforcement agencies.
The FAA declined comment for this story but in a recent fact sheet acknowledged the growing interest by law enforcement in unmanned aircraft.
“The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas and national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft,” the FAA statement said. “The goal is to help identify the challenges that UAS (umanned aircraft systems) will bring into this environment and what type of operations law enforcement can safely perform.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has supported expanding the use of domestic drones along the border with Mexico. In October, the Sheriff's Department in Montgomery County, north of Houston, bought a $300,000 ShadowHawk drone from Vanguard Defense industries using federal homeland security grant funds.
“It's an exciting piece of equipment for us," Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the sheriff's office told the Houston Chronicle at the time. "We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety -- looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire issues."
McDaniel said the aircraft would not be used to track suspects’ vehicles but may provide surveillance for officers serving warrants.
M. Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, says widespread use of drones domestically seems inevitable, particularly since they are an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopter and airplanes.
“Drones are capable of finding or following a specific person,” he writes in a recent article in the Stanford Law Review. “They can fly patterns in search of suspicious activities or hover over a location in wait. Some are as small as birds or insects, others as big as blimps. In addition to high-resolution cameras and microphones, drones can be equipped with thermal imaging and the capacity to intercept wireless communications.”
In addition to privacy concerns, Calo said, drones also raise safety and security issues, particularly because they can crash and their guidance systems can be hacked. He cited the case of the CIA drone recently lost in Iran. The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday reported a claim by an Iranian engineer that the Iranians were able to exploit a navigational weakness in the drone’s technology to make it land in Iran.
Catherine Crump, the ACLU report’s co-author and staff attorney with the Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said the organization isn’t against the use of all domestic drones but rather wants to make privacy a central issue as the technology becomes more available.
"We have a clear opportunity to get ahead of the game,” she said.
Some of the ACLU’s recommendations include not deploying drones unless there is certainty that they will collect evidence of a specific crime. If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required, the ACLU said. The report also calls for restrictions on retaining images of identifiable people, as well as an open process for developing policies on how drones will be used.
“Historically, the fact that manned helicopters and airplanes are expensive has imposed a natural limit on aerial surveillance. But the prospect of cheap, flying video surveillance cameras will likely open the floodgates,” said Jay Stanley, the report’s other co-author and senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Agreed but, we musn't throw the baby out with the bathwater! All things in proper balance. The choice lies with you carbon-based units. Hunter/Killers on stand-by.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, what's the difference?
One day when you wake up, you will realize that when they have total control over your "liberties", it won't matter whether you've done anything "wrong" or not. They will be able to change the rules on what you can do going forward and what you shouldn't have done retroactively. You will be deemed guilty and unable to "prove" yourself innocent. Then you will want to revolt, but it will be too late.
The right to revolt is also, at times, an obligation. Now is that time. If King George had obtained these kinds of powers over the populace, there never would have been an American revolution; Washington and Jefferson would have been 'disappeared' before the world had ever heard of them.
Well, meohmy, that's the problem when you give too much power to Law Enforcement, they make it up and then you have to prove your innocence. They decide if you are doing something "wrong".
Don't be so naive.
What's the big yank? We've had choppers and spotter craft for years, just think of it as your sniffer in the sky.
I hate bad guy's and liberal's!!!!
Its a problem with there command of the written word know doubt!
Darn those liberal's and bad guy's
Thank goodness that were not under there control's!!! Im just glad that O'bama hasnt bin able too take away my gun's
Alex Jones warned you all that these types of things were going to happen and all of you just laughed and mocked him and called him a paranoid crackpot. Well who's laughing now hmmm? All the things Alex Jones has predicted and warned you about has been proven 100% true. Martial Law is coming soon folks so be prepared to defend yourselves from you're own corrupt government.
As a fellow Patriot named Benjamin Franklin once said:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Now tell me is sacrificing all you're rights, freedoms and liberties worth the cost of living under the tyranny of you're own corrupt government that does not even give a rats ass about you.
For more truth please visit these two websites below:
www.infowars.com/
And
www.prisonplanet.com/
I am so sick of this subtle invasion of privacy all in the name of security,it's crap.
I expect ot be arrested any day now. I give the bird to every camera I see.
For those of you that still believe in Terrorists and the Boogey Man, good luck with the world your creating with your fear mongering, idiots.
shoot them down
A society which requires this much surveillance of its citizens is collapsing. If the technology is able to do all that it is reputed our testing of law enforcement has not kept abreast with the military applications being used. Psychology and Psychiatry do not have screening systems in place able to weed out the corrupt from the potentially corrupt employed by various levels of law enforcement. The Good old Boy network of decision making which would be used in authorizing this level of surveillance does not factor in the very real possibilty the devices will be used for personal gain or harassment of citizens by law enforcement and elected officials. I think National Guard or the US Army should be deployed to patrol the border en masse in rotating short term duties. That's human and seems a lot better than the thought anyone protesting the government or exposing corruption or anyone with an ax to grind against a political competitor could use these new toys. This is so Orwellian it is unbelievable.
A society which requires this much surveillance of its citizens is collapsing. If the technology is able to do all that it is reputed our testing of law enforcement has not kept abreast with the military applications being used. Psychology and Psychiatry do not have screening systems in place able to weed out the corrupt from the potentially corrupt employed by various levels of law enforcement. The Good old Boy network of decision making which would be used in authorizing this level of surveillance does not factor in the very real possibilty the devices will be used for personal gain or harassment of citizens by law enforcement and elected officials. I think National Guard or the US Army should be deployed to patrol the border en masse in rotating short term duties. That's human and seems a lot better than the thought anyone protesting the government or exposing corruption or anyone with an ax to grind against a political competitor could use these new toys. This is so Orwellian it is unbelievable
I posted this before but I don't see it so here goes again: They can already read a newspaper sitting on the sidewalk from a satellite, they already have the Tesla Death Ray, and they ARE using on American citizens, they are using particle beam weapons to control the weather, all over the world, but nobody is looking up anymore, FOR SOME REASON. They are using ion cannon particle beams that project holograms of aircraft to harass people, and that is what did 9/11! All of those planes were holograms! They are so far beyond using drones, are you kidding me? This is just entertainment for the masses. Look up at the sky, people, it's a plasma soup already. The clouds aren't even normal anymore. One of these days the veil is going to be lifted and you are going to feel like you are living in a Star Wars movie, or Men in Black.
I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I DO NOT BELIEVE that you help our cause, by theorizing that holograms were employed at the WTC. It is much more likely that the planes were flown, hijacked actually, by a remote control mechanism, and flown, much like DRONES, in a mode which the flight crew could not over-ride. They thought that they were going to be part of a LIVE-FLY National security DRILL. They didn't know that they were going to be sacrificed, in their ROLE-PLAYING WAR GAME.
The drone technology which allows fly by wire commercial aircraft to be flown remotely, is a National Security SECRET; it is known as the HOMERUN PROGRAM. Ironically, the section of the Pentagon allegedly hit by Flight 77 was known as the CATCHER"S MITT.
Ella1111 and Paul-977599..
Be aware the men in white coats are coming to get you.
I can't believe people can truly believe that BS. OK.. they DID vote Obama into office so I guess anything IS possible.
It is pathetic that you bother to attempt, poorly, to impugn our sanity. Ridiculing what you don't understand, or what you don't want others to understand or believe could be possible, is a very unamerican way to go through life.
If you were any kind of patriot to what used to be the United States of America, you would support an unhindered, subpoena empowered, security clearanced, and whistleblower protected investigation into the LIE that was the official story of 9/11/2001. It hasn't been allowed to happen yet, for a very good reason; it is called GUILTY DEMEANOR. If you've got nothing to hide, let the investigation begin. Cheney had been planning 9/11 for 30 years.
Paul... do you have FACTUAL evidence Cheney was planning this?? And virtually since the day the towers were completed no less. THAT is EVIDENCE I want to see, not only me, but THE WORLD WANTS TO SEE YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!!
Other than that, it's UNFOUNDED specualtion, supposition and the blathering of a very sick mind.
Seek professional help please. Before you do harm to yourself or others.
I will be happy to share my factual evidence with you and the investigative body which has been provided the power to fully corroborate all evidence and provide witness protection services to those who whistleblow on the perpetrators of the LIE that was the "official" story of 9/11.
When you are willing to support the impannelling of a suboena empowered, security clearanced, and witness protected investigative panel into 9/11, which has thus far been disallowed, only then will you get the evidence you claim, disengenuously, to want. It does no good to present it to you here. You will refuse to admit you believe it, because you are biased against the truth ever being revealed.
Paul... Your evidence is I'm sure the postings of people on... uhmm.. WikiLeaks, maybe the Huffington Post, or how about those YouTube videos.
I don't doubt you honestly believe your evidence, just be aware that there is irrefutable evidence of what happened and those responsible.
And I love the truth. I don't particularly believe rumor, innuendo, specualtion and supposition.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and SAFE New Year. Just watch out that those pesky reindeer don't run you over.
Where, pray tell, is the irrefutable evidence of what took place on 9/11/2001? It hasn't been presented or cross-examined in any public audio and video forum which I've ever seen or heard.
Try this mental exercise on. It is a fact that there has never been any PROOF provided to the American people that Muslims were flying the planes on 9/11.
Is this fact TRUE or FALSE?
You will need to focus on the legal definition of the word proof.
And why the need to finish up with a thinly veiled threat, that I might get myself killed for daring to expose the truth, of which you claim to be so fond.?
It's time to free you're mind. Free yourself from the lies, free yourself from the Matrix.
　It's time for you to wake up.
　I leave that choice up to you.
Another way for the government to watch us. We all ready have cameras on street corner, rail stations, airports, etec, etc, etc. Does anyone see our rights being slowly eroded in this country. Don't give me this BS that we won't be watched and spied on. We are now being watch by being tracked on our use of the computors and the internet. Those store cards you use tells a whole lot about you. Your facebook use being used against you for a good job. Your credit history used not only for gainful employment but used against you by the insurance industry for auto insurance. (never figured out how your credit history or income level affected you all ready being a safe driver)
Drones flying surveilance over the U.S. No, just another infringement on our freedom no matter how they want to spin this use. We better wake up and demand this stop as we are headed to being controlled by a few in this country. This is not what I served and fought for when in the military.
Are you aware that your smart phone can be employed by the FBI and the NSA as an open transmitter?
Under the CALEA statutes your phone can be spying on you 24/7 even when you believe that it is turned off!
Good thing I have a $10 "dumb phone".
The dumb phone can do the same thing, the difference is that you can remove the battery from your $10 phone, if you want the illusion of privacy back.
For those who think this is a good thing...
Since you don't mind THEM (whoever "them" may be) listening in on your intimate conversations on any phone, you surely won't mind as this drone switches on the thermal imaging and watches you and your partner have sex? Maybe YOUR recording can end up being passed around the office until someone makes a copy and posts it on YouTube for the world to see. Hey, maybe you or I can enlist the drones to watch your kids in the back seat of a car or off at college in their apartment or dorm. And just think how nice it would be if a pedophile is running the drone and can watch your little girl and track her home...Brings a whole new meaning to the name "PREDATOR" drone. HaHaHaHa
You can't be so stupid as to think "they" will use it only for the betterment of citizens. Maybe you should ask the military officers and enlisted men and women who had their sexual conversations "monitored" and RECORDED by your so called wonderful government what they think.
Those who are not fighting against this BS NOW are resigning themselves and their family to more and more intrusive technology. Hope you enjoy the future.
These willful ignorants and naives endanger the rest of us. All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing to stop it. Ignorance lets you sit on the sidelines while the informed take up the fight. We will remember who helped us overthrow evil, and who dithered and got in the way of progress.
I guess it is time for us country boys to buy anti-aircraft guns. I have been looking for a new hobby, shooting down surveillance drones would be fun.
Shooting at the drones will give "the authorities" an ability to arm them, "for their own defense". We have to disable the operators of the drones.
Hell Keith, go for it man. And, better have a anti-tank weapon on hand for when a Abrams comes rolling down the street. If anything, it'll give good urban warfare training for the local Guard. Before that Abrams comes you can practice on police cars.
mellowfello - It might be fun, I am well trained, although it has been 40 years I think things will come back once I get back in the saddle.
Paul - I am hoping that there are some good guys that know as much about their technology as they do and we can shut them down with the right broadcast equipment. This freedom thing may get real interesting, looks like retirement may be fun after all.
Of course it would be fun Keith, hell, destruction usually is for the "Well trained" who want to see if they still have it, lol. Shooting up police cars and drones would be better than a Arcade game. Go for it, maybe we'll read about you or hear about you in the news; "Man killed while attacking police." Man, I thought I was well trained too, "A" Team member, cross-trained and all, 5th Special Forces Group. SOG. Then, I went home on leave, went to the old bar "The Texas Ranch" on Irving Park Rd and Clark St. Went in, stood at the bar with a beer, banged the bottle on the bar and proclaimed that there wasn't "A hillbilly sumbitch in the place that could come close to whipping my ass!" Bad move, that was in Uptown, north side of Chicago. About three guys came off their stools and I wound up in the alley, lol. Yeah well, so much for being well trained. Good thing someone called the cops, and too bad that there wasn't a drone flying around.
Mellowfello - Many of us made that same mistake when we got home. Probablykept us from making worse mistakes. I would never shoot at any police, but it wouldn't bother me to take down equipment. By the way one of your LERPS (5th Spec) bailed out my fire team near Chi Lang in 1970
I don't like any of the crazy surveillance stuff that has come out since 9/11 or the changes in the law allowing detentions and arrest with little or no evidence. If anyone is interested in my opinion the terrorists won. It seems our government is intent on us living in fear. I am not afraid of the terrorist but I am afraid of our Government. When I was in the service I spent a lot of time in places that our Commander in Chief at the time said we would never go, but we were already there.
Some of the folks here are certainly fired up over losing all their rights and freedom. I read; "Lost too many rights, more are taken away, we don't, won't have any rights left." Ok, good reasons to be concerned but how about listing all the rights that have taken away, are losing daily. I see the majority of Americans continuing to go about their daily lives, coming and going as they please, many will vote in elections, not needing permission to move or change jobs. Living free as is their right as American citizens. What rights, what freedom has been taken away? Hell, just the fact that they are able to post what they do is evidence that freedom of speech hasn't been taken away. The OWS protesters camped for a long time, speaking out against greedy corporations until the people got fed up with being denied their right to move about. So, the right to freely assemble hasn't been taken away. But, the government, police forces, doing its duty protecting citizens from crime and terrorism is attacked. If any right is taken away it's the right of the citizen to be protected, and, that's done by government action, the very thing that government is supposed to do.
Childish at best, your argument supporting official intervention is wrong and ill-informed.
The laws are being changed in such a way to make the police state possible. We do not need to wait until we are actually imprisoned by a despotic government to see it coming. Your rights and privileges have been taken from you since 9/11 and just because you have not noticed in some physical way does not indicate that it isn't true.
Mellowfellow... I applaud and support the Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies for the job they do.
What I object to, and is in reality a violation of law per the Posse Comitatus Act, is having the US Military engaging in Law Enforcement activities on US Soil against US Citizens with NO due process.
That is a frightening concept indeed. I don't care what they're "ACCUSED" of, US Citizens have rights GUARANTEED by the US Constitution which the US Military, by this bills passage can entirely bypass. No court order, no reading of your rights, no legal representation, no trial by a jury of your peers... NOTHING. As one person in an earlier article noted, they can lock you up with NO ONE knowing where you are, who has you, and can release you at their desire, or possibly "the first Wednesday after never."
Very good XD, but, there are situations, like the past rioting in L A, the Democratic Convention in Chicago, when the police force is out-numbered and possibly out-gunned. The primary goal is to protect the citizen, so if it means armed troops in the streets I'm all for it. Granted, it wouldn't be a pretty sight, but if my life along with other lives is endangered, then bring out the military. That's been the history of our country. A good example is the "Bonus Army" that moved into DC, 1932. If there had been drones available the caravans of armed men would have been spotted, steps taken to head them off and McArthur would not have had to have his troops ride them down when they set up camp and refused to disperse. The Capitol Police were not able to handle the situation. By the way, those armed men were mostly combat veterans of WWII and better trained than the Capitol Police. Now, someone is sure to point out that it was a just cause, but taking up arms against the government was not a viable solution, there are courts of law for that. Still, there are elements in America that want to see armed revolution in the streets, so, whatever it takes to stop it is fine by me.
Did the "Bonus Army" TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT? NO. Were shots fired at congressmen or the President. NO.
The government is supposed to be responsive enough to the citizens that it doesn't find itself angering enough people that they will leave their homes and march on washington, armed or otherwise.
If drones had been available to King George, Washington and Jefferson would have been disappeared. You're like a British subject siding with the wrong side of the American Revolution.
Actually Paul, our Revolution had a lot of support in England among the people. As for which side to be on, well, it's agreed that one third supported the Revolution, one third remained loyal to their country, England. And, a third couldn't have cared less about it, and, sure, that third was mainly on the frontier. Have you ever read a list of the grievances against the King? In my estimation some of them don't hold water, but, in a time of Revolution the fiery folks hear the drums, grab their guns and go running to the fight. Hell, whichever side they were on didn't matter. As a matter of fact England''s rival, France, worked hard to get the Revolution going, lol, anything to bug England was fine with them. France promised money, arms and the French fleet would protect our ports. Anyway, we won and we live today free. We live with the threat of violence all around us, in our cities and rural too. Violence from criminal elements and if it takes drones, or police riding or walking a beat, if it takes troops, I'm ok with that, and, I still haven't seen a listing of all the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that we have lost, or has been taken from us. In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, most of the comments against surveillance are just fadish examples of being American, we're supposed to be anti-government. America began with strong anti-government sentiment. Problem is, it can be destroyed with that same sentiment.
Mellowfellow...
You believe permitting the Military to "detain" US Citizens with no due process is acceptable? That's what the Law Enforcement community is for.
I'll agree if they determine there is a terrorist, of citizenship foreign or domestic, with a suitcase nuclear device, then yes, bring in the experts and that is the Military. In situations other than these, it is a Law Enforcement issue.
You appear to be a very intelligent and educated individual. Have you forgotten the Benjamin Franklin quote;
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. (Historical Review of Pennsylvania 1759)
Drones should be along the border, assisting the interdiction of illegal immigrants and drug runners.... NOT spying on citizens. Is the government THAT fearful of the populace?
Mellofellow - you must be in Law Enforcement, that is the only way you could possibly believe the scenario you have proposed. Americans do have the right to protest and if that right is taken away by illegal policing then the consequences will be armed rebellion.
If you can support the killing of the folks in the Bonus Army then I suppose I know which side you will be on when things get tough. I will be on the side of the people.
Keith, no, I'm not in law enforcement. I knew a guy in church who was and he suggested that I apply to the Highland Park, IL force. I told him that in all good conscience I couldn't be a cop. I would have to enforce laws that I didn't think were right. I just believe that citizens need protection from crime, and foreign aggression and the government's job is to provide that protection. As for which side I'll be on when it gets down and dirty, I too will be on the side of people. It seems that we have different interpretations of who "The people" are.
XD, as for being educated, well, I never went to college and it took me five years to finish high school, I had to work, so, no time to study and poor grades meant that I had to be put back to redo my Sophomore year. But, I do read, and look around watching and listening to what people are saying. I know what Franklin said, and I think he was wrong. Being a Founding Father didn't give him a divine claim to fame. I don't see any essential liberties being given up or taken away to be replaced with scurity. Before any right or freedom can be enjoyed there must be security, people must be secure in their lives as they go about daily living. Granted, there is security in a police state, but, no freedom. It seems that freedom and security go hand in hand, can't have one without the other. America is a unique country, we have freedom and we also have the means, elected government, to make freedom secure.
Can a civil war between Dems. and Repub. really happen? Can a civil war between the "haves" and "have-not" really happen? Can an UPRISING really happen in the U.S.? Probably not---because of the VOTE.
Many of us are tired of voting when the choices are Scoundrel, Thief or Liar.
Is that right Keith, all politicians fall in either the scoundrel, thief or liar groups? Reading comments here makes me think that all politicians should be taken out, lined up and shot. Lol, sounds so very cool and "Today." Who, Keith, would you replace them with? Just pick out someone walking down the street, "Hey, you're our new Mayor, or Governor," right? A person desiring public office goes through a long period of investigation, within his Party and by the Media, looking for skeletons in closets, past indiscretions. Well, maybe politicians, public office holders, shouldn't be replaced by any one individual. Replace them by committees overseeing the functions of government. How would one get on a committe, by appealing to the Party leaders, soliciting their support? And, in return of course, those Party leaders would have total control, lol. Whatcha think there guy, what do you advise? You want the system destroyed so you must have some thought about what should replace it.
Mellowfello - Thinking about a violent end to the scoundrels lives never crossed my mind but shaming them in public for their crimes would suit me. No one wants to be the bad guy but our Legislators are sold out and they are the bad guys.
If we removed the guys that supply the money their might be less corruption in Washington. With less corruption and fewer sold votes there would be a chance that the people would actually be heard.
The system as it is can not last, I don't know how it will end but if there are legal ways for me to help bring it down I will be doing that. I will take a chance on the outcome, I don't think it could be worse than what we have now.
Keith, I know there are bad legislators, just like there are bad cops, teachers and military leaders. All of those groups are comprised of people, and where you have people you find good and bad. I personally think that on the whole our legislators are fine and upstanding. They come from backgrounds not too unlike many backgrounds of people here. Some came into office rich, and some poor. They had visions of what America should be and had hopes of making a difference. As for shaming the bad ones, well, there is nothing as bad as being censured by your peers, of having to stand before your peers and be tried for wrongdoing, for disgracing the trust that was put in one when elected. No one wants to live out his life in disgrace. Our present system has lasted a long time and unless a popular uprising ends it, it will continue to last. If it does end then what will come will be a whole lot worse than what was ended. Fighting in the streets as one group of thugs seeks dominance over another, resulting in a new band of thugs in power. Look around Keith, listen to the rhetoric of even some here; Talk of overthrowing the government, throwing the politicians out, establishing a new order. Lol, it's the idea of a "New order" that worries me the most, a new order of what? A new order established by the "Man on the white horse?" Yeah, a dictator. We aren't anywhere near being a dictatorship but if some have their way that's what we'll have. Lol, a dictator working for the good of the people while he and his band of armed thugs milk the people dry. Then what? Yep, "Do over."
The band of thugs we have now have already made the working class into the working poor. How can it get worse without the people taking action? I don't claim to have the answers but I don't think your idea of doing more of the same is going to work for our benefit.
C'mon Keith, really now. Our legislators are a band of thugs? When was the last time you were forced at gun point, a gun held by a thug, to go to work, pay your taxes so the "Band of thugs" could proper? The last time you voted, did a thug with a gun, representing a candidate standing for re-election tell you that you had better vote correctly, or else? I will agree that at times the government does act thuggish(?). Like when some companies whine to the government about not being able to compete because such and such company holds all the good patents, and, owns the means by which communication is passed on, demanding that the government step in, force the company to share patents and property ownership. Now, that is acting like a thug and is looting. Or when some folks who failed to hit the big time demand that the rich is be stripped of their wealth, have it turned over to them. More looting by thugs. Yes, legislators making up our government act like thugs then, but only because a rabid and vocal group wants them too, and, continues to re-elect them to do it. The working class is now the working poor? How so, what is poor? The Middle Class has been destroyed some say. When did that happen? I've said before; Look around in the morning at all the people driving good cars, going to work. Returning to nice homes and good food. Are they the working poor? No, they're the Middle Class, and, lol, working hard to rise, to get more than what they have. Well, before I retired in 2003 that was the class I was in and I certainly didn't consider myself poor. I know what poor is, man, I was born and reared poor.
Mellowfello - It seems to me that you and I will never agree. I intend to bring about change, I am close to retiring and I will have time to work for what I believe in. It is clear we are on opposite sides of the issue so work hard and perhaps your side will persevere.
Right Keith, we are of opposing sides. Where is it written that we must agree? I hope you enjoy your retirement, I've been retired since 2003. I don't come here seeking, as some do, confrontation and argument. I want changes too, but not changes that will result in the citizen's freedom to earn and own wealth taken away by criminal or terrorist acts, so, that's why I believe as I do. Some folks like to quote people long dead, like Benjamin Franklin. Well, when advocating protection I like what T. Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That covers a lot of ground.
That was FDR who said that, not Teddy.
No one wants to remove a citizen's right to earn wealth. Some of us would like to redifine the term EARN.
Right Paul, and damned if I didn't know it was Franklin D. when I typed Teddy. Anyway, from what I get from a lot of comments here some folks want to strip the wealth from the rich, because of the reasons I gave. I know a lot of people, personally, that feel that someone desiring more than a neighbor is anti-social and insensitive. You may not want to take away the right to earn wealth. I think that anyone ought to earn as much as they can, for whatever reason they want, and keep it. Lol, two extremes maybe. Well, I'll go with the latter. I know a lot of folks want to redefine "Earn." Many folks want the rich man to feel that he is being allowed, permitted to earn, earn by the means that they think is correct. Take for instance the million dollar contract to play football. A person has an aptitude, he goes to college and learns a profession. Upon graduation he hopes to get a job where he will make the big bucks, be it lawyer, doctor, business and finance, whatever. Another has an aptitude and he goes to college, hones his skills and becomes good enough to be drafted by a NFL team to play football, and, gets the big bucks. They both went to college, practiced and learned their profession, and made a success out of it. But, the football player shouldn't be allowed to make that money? Well, he earned it as much as the other person. So, Paul, how do you define earn? To me earning is using your knowledge and skill to earn. Knowledge covers a lot of ground, I know. That's what gets some brokers in trouble with the SEC. They find out something, act on it and make money. Problem is, they may not have found out in the manner that the SEC determines to be appropriate.
"earning is using your knowledge and skill to earn." That is hardly a definition of anything to use the same term or latin root alone in the definition. Repetition is not definition.
Well, ok, so then, when you earn something you use what you have learned to do that. In a way, when we're babies we learn, by nature, to be observant and as we grow older we apply that knowledge learned to our environment, immediate or distant, depending on our age. So, we go to school and learn things, learning them well enough to earn the right to move on in school. We go to work, learn work habits, some skill, earning the right to move up in employment by making ourselves more valuable to an employer. We grow old, retire and use our accumulated knowledge to earn the right to be the wise sage to those behind us, lol. Well, seems so to me, but then, I barely made it out of high school. I guess that's why I don't understand your thing about "Repetition not being definition." I don't understand how the two interact, how is repetition definitive? Definitive of what? Yeah, ok, definitive of repetition, ok. Whatever.
Repetition is not definitive. Can you stop repeating the "lol". It got old back in 2002.
Earning is earning, is not a definition of earning. There are different types of income besides "earned" income.
Yeah ok, I guess "Lol" does get old. But aside from one guy in a chat room who used to get incensed at it, considered it to be insulting, you're the first one to object strenously to it. I shall refrain. Ok, earning is not a definition of earning, did I give that impression? Now, all income is not earned? Well, ok if you consider inherited wealth as income and not earned. Income if the inheritance is stretched out over a few years. But it's earned. Earned because one was a member of the family of the deceased. Earning doesn't mean just blood, sweat and tears, effort put forth. So, I may have a broader definition of earning than you do. If I invest X amount of dollars in a retirement fund, and then draw from that fund periodically it is earned income, because what I put into the fund is earning it. It was my property invested and invested property earns, hopefully. When I was in the army I loaned money, the old three for five, five for ten, ten for fifteen etc. That money loaned earned my return. You seem to be implying that unless one actually works a certain number of hours a day, days in a week, for a wage or salary, any other method is not earned income. What examples do you have of unearned income? Finding money on the sidewalk? I'll buy that, hell, I found a hundred dollar bill once while walking my dogs. And, you can believe that I looked around for more. Hey, maybe by looking around I would have earned what I might have found.
ALL activities from airborne platforms, actual and feared, ALL have been and are conducted with piloted airplanes and helicopters.
The difference with "Drones" is that they are smaller, ground based piloted via remote control, and CHEAPER therefore can be much more readily and widely distributed. That is it. There is nothing "new" technology wise here, just simple miniaturization and cost shrinkage by labor costs and risks replaced with automation. Just as police cars have evolved into mobile computing and communication platforms relying on old fashioned Voice Radio plus analog and digital data communication. Simply MUCH MORE of the same old, same old INFORMATION exchanged, and much quicker too.
ALL issues relative to human rights, constitutionally protected rights, and breaches of both and court adjudicated clarifications and remedies remain the same. All that has increased is the complexity and widespread occurrence.
Technologies will continue to ENABLE more and more proper and improper intrusions by governments on individuals and our alertness and reactions must simply be heightened accordingly.
Stay ALERT America and embrace new technologies for their benefits while guarding against their improper, abusive misapplications so we keep our constitution up to date, living, viable, and serving us as we cherish it historic service!
Anyone got the number for the Iranian kid who hacked the last drone?
I agree that there are safety and priivacy issues that are at the heart of this issue. My concern is that my use of drone hardware, which is for GIS analysis of topography and other remote sensing data for research and with the permission of land owners and/or government agencies, will become illegal or impossible to operate because of regulatory costs. My methods are extemely low to no cost to farmers, research institutions and other non-profits/ NGOs. All of our data is open license and images only taken with explicit permission of the property owners. I would like to fly my UAV under 400ft and in visual range and with limited exposure to dense populations. I hope regulators take these concerns into account. Additionally, my hardware include optical imaging detection and avoidance, sonar based avoidance and radio density avoidance. It uses tech from 3d imaging optics to detect and avoid a variety of obsticals.
Excellent article, I had thought they were the Turks rather than the Iranians.
Herramientas