Domestic drones by BIGDAMNNOBODY

Because the military/intelligence jackboots run everything behind the scenes, even when their tails are on fire about all the monitoring.

Basically they do whatever they want to, and no one can say otherwise because it's already established SOP, too late to stop anything. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission and so on. They can break the law so long as it's kept top secret. And if they're ever called on it, they trot out made up nonsense to justify it, and the leadership folds up like the spineless worms they are.

*Where it's headed* Hope you like a missile to the face to wake you up in the morning!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:36 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

By allowing drones elsewhere, that's how.

We - and I'm using the collective "We", the nation, the government - started with them in places we weren't comfortable (or didn't have popular support for) sending our own soldiers into, or sending our bombers to attack. But drones let us feel good about it, because, y'know... scary brown people!

Then we decided it was a good idea to use drones to watch our border with Mexico - and that was okay, because, y'know... scary brown people. And besides, if they're just on the border, then it's not like we're *really* using drones here in America, right?

So now that nobody raised a stink about it before, why *wouldn't* the government, the NSA, the FBI, your local police, and your local Taco Shack think it's okay to use them to spy on you, deliver food to you, watch what you're watching, follow you around, etc. Especially in the inner cities, of course, because, y'know... SCARY BROWN PEOPLE!

If you never cared about it before, it seems a bit disingenuous to care about it now. Unless you were totally okay with the idea of drones killing people just so long as they weren't white Americans.

And hey, on the bright side, these aren't *armed* drones, right? I mean, not yet anyway. Right? That's how it will be explained away to a somnambulant public, and it will probably work. Heck, Rappy's already on board with Obama's drone program, and says it's the only good thing he's done as president.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:45 AM

I find it fascinating how much the words "I told you so" sound like "Kaboom" nowadays.

Ah well, post mortem recognition isn't really that satisfying. Fare-thee-well democracy, we hardly knew ye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:57 PM

"Easier to ask forgiveness than permission and so on."

And that's my basic problem with this kind of shit - this attitude amongst so many. (I'm not saying YOU display this attitude, Byte; I know better, and I know you DON'T feel that way)

This ever-weening "Now is not the time to place blame..." line of crap grates on me. What I've noticed in my years of working with people who use corporate-speak jargon like that is this: The person who says it's no time to place blame is more often than not the one to blame for the cock-up in the first place. And they know it, and they don't want to be called on it.

Sometimes it IS the time to place blame, and sometimes it's time to dole out some harsh fucking penalties to make damn sure that the next dolt down the pike to try some of this shit knows what he's going to get for it, and that he's going to get it good and hard.

It's only easier to ask forgiveness than permission if you don't punish people after the fact.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I find it fascinating how much the words "I told you so" sound like "Kaboom" nowadays.

Ah well, post mortem recognition isn't really that satisfying. Fare-thee-well democracy, we hardly knew ye.

I take no joy in breaking out the I-told-you-soes; truth be told, I wish I'd been wrong about the whole drone thing, and I hope I'm wrong about what's next.

But I'm not.

SWAT teams get them next, ICE broadens its program, then after the next "terror attack", every small town in the country will have a drone budget.

The people who will argue for the expansion of the programs will tell you that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

And they'll negotiate in secret, behind closed doors and drawn curtain over the windows, all while telling us they have nothing to hide.

The thing about glass houses is that when you hurl rocks at them, it tends to create lots of shrapnel and lots of people get cut in the aftermath.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:31 PM

JONGSSTRAW

I'm not worried about it. My fleet of Estes Rockets can take down any sorry-ass drone. I just need to remove the parachutes and place explosive bb's into the payload compartments.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Domestic drones

No shit, Sherlock.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I figured if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us...

Our security dept is currently field testing our own UAV, sorta.

http://www.amazon.com/Syma-Channel-Control-Helicopter-Recording/dp/B00
81VOEZM

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 1:48 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

So if you have a problem with drones do you have a problem with helicopter? If not why?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So if you have a problem with drones do you have a problem with helicopter? If not why?

Do you have curtains or blinds on your windows? If so, why?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 2:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well in all truth the Syma S107C is fairly useless as a UAV given the near impossibility of using it outdoors, iffy battery life, flaky and over sensitive controls... although I would highly reccommend the non camera version as a childs toy, it runs only about twenty bucks and is quite durable, surprisingly so, as the S107C has taken a beating from the cat, who swatted it from the air and then pounced on and tried to murder it, cause she got the notion it was a giant bug and needed to die - it came out of that unscathed, which was impressive.

On the larger issue of drones, here, on this property - it's very simple, unlike some Government dickhead, I am actually answerable for my actions, both directly to the owner, and to the folks whom I am protecting, cause if enough of the residents have an issue with something they complain to the property manager, who takes it to the owner, who would call me out on it, although this has never happened nor is it likely to, and the reason ?

Cause our residents almost unanimously trust me, I am out there 5-6 nights a week, walkin around, I talk to them, try to address their concerns, handle their non-maintanence problems if I can, or put them in touch with folks who can, and generally look after them, treat them as human beings - AND respect their privacy, I know them only by their unit numbers for that very reason, so that even when under legal pressure I can blow a lot of things right off cause I honestly do NOT know their names or who they are, on purpose.

They know damn well I'd flat out EAT a memory card if I had to in order to prevent what I might consider misuse, so they're not going to complain about something done in their interest by someone they trust, that they can actually hold accountable if that trust is ever violated.

Sure, I could make the legal argument that this is the owners property and once out the door of your unit there can be no expectation of privacy, but I consider that argument bullshit - this is a matter of personal affiliation, someone they know, personally, operating a UAV in their interest, rather than some faceless entity they've no control over operating one without or against their consent, and certainly without care for their own interests or concerns.

While it is my job to promote the peace and safety of this place, I am at all times very cognizant of the simple fact that their rent puts food on MY table, and the fact that this IS my community and therefore "turf", inclines me to feel protective of them as people as well.

The problem doesn't rest in the equipment or use thereof, the issue here is trust and accountability.

That said, I am indeed experimenting off-site with some notions about drones designed to take out other drones, which if nothing else might be entertaining in an aerial combat robot wars sorta way - we already have a Walkera unit with a spring loaded launcher which fires a small wire net which will foul the rotors of another heli type and drop it quite effectively.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 2:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So if you have a problem with drones do you have a problem with helicopter? If not why?

Do you have curtains or blinds on your windows? If so, why?

To keep the neighbors from looking in. But the cops aren't using helicopters to peek into windows, are they ?

Drones, on the other hand, can more discretely fly over head and zoom in on items of interest. Like your wife or daughter sun bathing , au natural, in the back yard.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 4:18 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"So if you have a problem with drones do you have a problem with helicopter? If not why?"

Helicopters are pretty obvious. It's difficult to secretly surveille with them. OTOH they're good in active pursuits, and good in rescue operations from difficult terrain and open water, and in medevac operations.

Drones OTOH are more discrete. They're relatively cheap to operate, which means there can be more of them. The only thing they're good for is surveillance, or firing rockets at people.

So, helicopters are poor spy equipment but good pursuit and rescue equipment. Drones OTOH are only good for spying and killing.

I'm not sure why you'd even make the comparison.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:03 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

So the issue is just not knowing. So keeping a helicopter in the sky to watch people would be okay simple because you would know it is there?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

That said, I am indeed experimenting off-site with some notions about drones designed to take out other drones, which if nothing else might be entertaining in an aerial combat robot wars sorta way - we already have a Walkera unit with a spring loaded launcher which fires a small wire net which will foul the rotors of another heli type and drop it quite effectively.

-Frem

Omigosh it's like the childhood fantasies I had about remote controlled battletech toys that are able to fight each other! Only for grown-up life and death reasons!

<3 this

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So the issue is just not knowing. So keeping a helicopter in the sky to watch people would be okay simple because you would know it is there?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

...Noooo...

None of us want either of those, I'm pretty sure.

Did you miss the point that the helicopter is better for PURSUIT? I dunno about you, but the idea of some loud assholes hovering around chasing me down with dangerous spinning propeller blades and a swat team to jump out and tackle me is pretty much just as scary as the spying.

The spying lets them come up with bullshit reasons, and the helicopters let them ENFORCE the bullshit reasons.

And then they might add missiles to the drones? Damn. No sale for me. Both of these concepts are basically terrifying, and that local communities are relying on them is a sign of the police state we've become.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 6:06 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...Noooo...

None of us want either of those, I'm pretty sure.

Did you miss the point that the helicopter is better for PURSUIT? I dunno about you, but the idea of some loud assholes hovering around chasing me down with dangerous spinning propeller blades and a swat team to jump out and tackle me is pretty much just as scary as the spying.

The spying lets them come up with bullshit reasons, and the helicopters let them ENFORCE the bullshit reasons.

And then they might add missiles to the drones? Damn. No sale for me. Both of these concepts are basically terrifying, and that local communities are relying on them is a sign of the police state we've become.

Helicopters can have missiles as well.

My whole point is that helicopters, and manned planes, have been available for general surveillance for years. Yet, they are not used like that. They are only used in certain cases.

Drones are cheaper to use, and can be used more often, but are not simple flying overhead watching random people. The article at the start of the thread says that drones were used only a few times outside boarder enforcement. One of those times was a hostage situation, which I don't think anyone here will argue against.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 6:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

On that subject:

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security has also been reported to lend out drones to local police forces. The first documented case was in North Dakota, when a farmer refused to give back livestock that wondered onto his property. The local sheriff department deployed the predator missiles without a warrant or Congressional approval. The Brossart family has been known to be heavily armed and an anti-government separatist group, whose farm land is utilized as a compound. Nevertheless, the standoff was settled without a single shot fired.

However, it is becoming increasingly true that the federal government and local authorities are using drones equipped with heat sensors, high-grade cameras and radars on American soil, all without seeking a warrant and court approval. Here rests the problem. The use of drones on American soil have until now fallen under the guidelines set forth by FISA. The transfer of this from foreign intelligence and military to civil protection agencies leave little safeguards or regulations to protect Americans privacy and civil liberties.

Several issues have arisen regarding the use of drones and our Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court case California v Ciraolo ruled that warrantless aerial observations of a person’s yard didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

The FAA predicts that 30,000 drones will be flying in American airspace in less than 20 years. This is quite an increase which makes creating rules and regulations all the more important. With the help of Congress, section 332 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, calls to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into national airspace"
Quote:
“Federal agencies that employ unmanned aircraft systems technology in the national airspace system, and the unmanned aircraft systems industry, shall develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.”

There are also several pieces of legislation that are seeking to constrain the domestic use of drones.

-- The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013 (H.R 972)

-- Preserving American Privacy Act of 2013 (H.R 637)

-- Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013(H.R 1262)

Given the recent revelations of the NSA’s blatant government over reach, concerns regarding drones and privacy are understood. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security shouldn’t be deploying drones over American soil until there are well established regulations regarding American citizen’s privacy. There is no doubt that drones can have their benefits, but in a time were government has shown reckless abandon in regards to privacy the people deserve to have some safeguards established before increasing domestic drone usage.

(Details of what these would do at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/20/drones-are-being-used-on-ameri
can-soil-without-any-regulationvideo/

We are a nation of laws; despite the fact that our laws don't stop the authorities from overstepping our rights, in my opinion we need to get laws in place that give us at least SOME protection, now that drones are a reality of life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 4:11 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"So the issue is just not knowing. So keeping a helicopter in the sky to watch people would be okay simple because you would know it is there?"

Not sure how you missed what I posted and came up with what you came up with - unless you only got as far as the first phrase and went no further (a problem I try to avoid by making my posts really short. Tho in this case it looks like it wasn't short enough).

So, to reiterate what I posted:

Helicopters are obvious, they have other valuable uses AND they’re roughly 5000x more expensive to operate, which means you will have far fewer of them doing whatever they're doing at any one time, especially surveillance.

Drones are discrete, have limited uses - spying and killing, and are extremely cheap to operate, meaning you can saturate the skies with them if you wish.

So, if you wish to discuss my actual post I'll get back to you. If you wish to engage in straw-man and other dishonest rhetorical tactics, you're on your own.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 4:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Did you miss the point that the helicopter is better for PURSUIT?"

They're often used here in California during high-speed freeway and surface street pursuits. They're safer for everyone else on the ground, rather than having a parade of vehicles driven at high speed through traffic and where pedestrians are crossing the streets.

The other things I forgot were that they're extremely useful in wildfires, and in construction. Where I live I haven't seen them used for construction (did see it in downtown Los Angeles tho), but I've personally seen them being used for fighting wildfires three times within 2 miles of my house.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:05 PM