States and drones

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


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.....
 
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
 
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.
 


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.

 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

I add that those 200 are only over our skies?
And can they also hit differing
points of altitude, and angles?
 
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.
Ben Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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_nsadatacenter/all/ or http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/glimpse-raytheons-people-tracking-software

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.
 
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.
 


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.
 
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?
 
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...
But he (Obama) admitted the public needs to know more about how the drone program works and what rules the administration is following.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom