PDA

View Full Version : Drones in U.S. Skies?



Nickdfresh
06-19-2012, 10:55 AM
Talk of drones patrolling US skies spawns anxiety
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5vrCGPM94H1FElgrLow_7w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MTQ7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/55567b5933dff311120f6a7067004a99.jpg
This September 2011 file photo provided by Vanguard Defense Industries, shows a ShadowHawk drone with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members. The prospect that thousands of drones could be patrolling
Associated Press By JOAN LOWY | Yahoo.com (http://news.yahoo.com/talk-drones-patrolling-us-skies-spawns-anxiety-063727667--finance.html) 1 hr 45 mins ago

This September 2011 file photo provided by Vanguard Defense Industries, shows a ShadowHawk drone with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members. The prospect that thousands of drones could be patrolling U.S. skies by the end of this decade is raising the specter of a Big Brother government that peers into backyards and bedrooms. The worries began mostly on the political margins, but there are signs that ordinary people are starting to fret that unmanned aircraft could soon be circling overhead. (AP Photo/Lance Bertolino, Vanguard Defense Industries)

This September 2011 file photo …

WASHINGTON (AP) — The prospect that thousands of drones could be patrolling U.S. skies by the end of this decade is raising the specter of a Big Brother government that peers into backyards and bedrooms.

The worries began mostly on the political margins, but there are signs that ordinary people are starting to fret that unmanned aircraft could soon be circling overhead.

Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican congressman from Louisiana's coastal bayou country, said constituents have stopped him while shopping at Walmart to talk about it.

"There is a distrust amongst the people who have come and discussed this issue with me about our government," Landry said. "It's raising an alarm with the American public."

Another GOP freshman, Rep. Austin Scott, said he first learned of the issue when someone shouted out a question about drones at a Republican Party meeting in his Georgia congressional district two months ago.

An American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist, Chris Calabrese, said that when he speaks to audiences about privacy issues generally, drones are what "everybody just perks up over."

"People are interested in the technology, they are interested in the implications and they worry about being under surveillance from the skies," he said.

The level of apprehension is especially high in the conservative blogosphere, where headlines blare "30,000 Armed Drones to be Used Against Americans" and "Government Drones Set to Spy on Farms in the United States."

When Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, suggested during an interview on Washington radio station WTOP last month that drones be used by police domestically since they've done such a good job on foreign battlefields, the political backlash was swift. NetRightDaily complained: "This seems like something a fascist would do. ... McDonnell isn't pro-Big Government, he is pro-HUGE Government."

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va., which provides legal assistance in support of civil liberties and conservative causes, warned the governor, "America is not a battlefield, and the citizens of this nation are not insurgents in need of vanquishing."

There's concern as well among liberal civil liberties advocates that government and private-sector drones will be used to gather information on Americans without their knowledge. A lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco, whose motto is "defending your rights in the digital world," forced the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this year to disclose the names of dozens of public universities, police departments and other government agencies that have been awarded permission to fly drones in civilian airspace on an experimental basis.

Giving drones greater access to U.S. skies moves the nation closer to "a surveillance society in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities," the ACLU warned last December in a report.

The anxiety has spilled over into Congress, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers have been meeting to discuss legislation that would broadly address the civil-liberty issues raised by drones. A Landry provision in a defense spending bill would prohibit information gathered by military drones without a warrant from being used as evidence in court. A provision that Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., added to another bill would prohibit the Homeland Security Department from arming its drones, including ones used to patrol the border.

Scott and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have introduced identical bills to prohibit any government agency from using a drone to "gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a regulation" without a warrant.

"I just don't like the concept of drones flying over barbecues in New York to see whether you have a Big Gulp in your backyard or whether you are separating out your recyclables according to the city mandates," Paul said in an interview, referring to a New York City ban on supersized soft drinks.

He acknowledged that is an "extreme example," but added: "They might just say we'd be safer from muggings if we had constant surveillance crisscrossing the street all the time. But then the question becomes, what about jaywalking? What about eating too many donuts? What about putting mayonnaise on your hamburger? Where does it stop?"

Calabrese, the ACLU lobbyist, called Paul's office as soon as he heard about the bill.

"I told them we think they are starting from the right place," Calabrese said. "You should need some kind of basis before you use a drone to spy on someone."

In a Congress noted for its political polarization, legislation to check drone use has the potential to forge "a left-right consensus," he said. "It bothers us for a lot of the same reasons it bothers conservatives."

The backlash has drone makers concerned. The drone market is expected to nearly double over the next 10 years, from current worldwide expenditures of nearly $6 billion annually to more than $11 billion, with police departments accounting for a significant part of that growth.

"We go into this with every expectation that the laws governing public safety and personal privacy will not be administered any differently for (drones) than they are for any other law enforcement tool," said Dan Elwell, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association.

Discussion of the issue has been colored by exaggerated drone tales spread largely by conservative media and bloggers.

Scott said he was prompted to introduce his bill in part by news reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has been using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska. The agency has indeed been searching for illegal dumping of waste into streams but is doing it the old-fashioned way, with piloted planes.

In another case, a forecast of 30,000 drones in U.S. skies by 2020 has been widely attributed to the FAA. But FAA spokeswoman Brie Sachse said the agency has no idea where the figure came from. It may be a mangled version of an aerospace industry forecast that there could be nearly 30,000 drones worldwide by 2018, with the United States accounting for half of them.

Fear that some drones may be armed has been fueled in part by a county sheriff's office in Texas that used a homeland security grant to buy a $300,000, 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone for its SWAT team. The drone can be equipped with a 40mm grenade launcher and a 12-gauge shotgun. Randy McDaniel, chief deputy with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, told The Associated Press earlier this year his office had no plans to arm the drone, but he left open the possibility the agency may decide to adapt the drone to fire tear gas canisters and rubber bullets.

Earlier this year Congress, under pressure from the Defense Department and the drone manufacturers, ordered the FAA to give drones greater access to civilian airspace by 2015. Besides the military, the mandate applies to drones operated by the private sector and civilian government agencies, including federal, state and local law enforcement.

Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and Joe Barton, R-Texas, co-chairs of a congressional privacy caucus, asked the FAA in April how it plans to protect privacy as it develops regulations for integrating drones into airspace now exclusively used by aircraft with human pilots. There's been no response so far, but Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta will probably be asked about it when he testifies at a Senate hearing Thursday.

Even if the FAA were to establish privacy rules, it's primarily a safety agency and wouldn't have the expertise or regulatory structure to enforce them, civil liberties advocates said. But no other government agency is addressing the issue, either, they said.

___

Follow Joan Lowy at http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy

___

Online:

http://www.faa.gov

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 12:26 PM
One of these days they are going to push things too far where it just snaps.

kwame k
06-19-2012, 12:43 PM
Not unless they outlaw couches and remote controls!

jhale667
06-19-2012, 12:48 PM
As long as they put the proper legal safeguards in place, I don't see it as intrusive. It's kinda ridiculous to suggest tax dollars will be spent to monitor "Big Gulps at BBQs" or whether or not someone puts "mayo on their burger"...that's just alarmist BS that diminishes their point... and as for spying on bedrooms, wouldn't you hear the stupid thing hovering outside your window...? :rolleyes:

sadaist
06-19-2012, 01:39 PM
One of these days they are going to push things too far where it just snaps.


They already are. As soon as they fuck with the Internet, which they inevitably will try, the shit will hit the fan. Internet is the last bastion of free speech & sharing of knowledge and ideas. Governments HATE this. People in power HATE this.

When did we start electing officials to be in charge of us rather than represent us? Funny & odd how we hired & pay these people to do these things to us that we hate so much.

gbranton
06-19-2012, 01:57 PM
As long as they put the proper legal safeguards in place, I don't see it as intrusive. It's kinda ridiculous to suggest tax dollars will be spent to monitor "Big Gulps at BBQs" or whether or not someone puts "mayo on their burger"...that's just alarmist BS that diminishes their point...


It's no more or less intrusive than if the local police hopped over your fence and strolled around your back yard periodically examining your stuff without your consent. If you looked outside and saw them aimlessly wandering your backyard for no particular reason I am betting you would get fired up about that but it is the same concept.

As for it being ridiculous to suggest tax dollars would be spent to monitor people's eating habits, several years ago I would have thought it ridiculous that cups over a certain size would be outlawed anywhere in "free" country.

jhale667
06-19-2012, 02:16 PM
It's no more or less intrusive than if the local police hopped over your fence and strolled around your back yard periodically examining your stuff without your consent. If you looked outside and saw them aimlessly wandering your backyard for no particular reason I am betting you would get fired up about that but it is the same concept.

As for it being ridiculous to suggest tax dollars would be spent to monitor people's eating habits, several years ago I would have thought it ridiculous that cups over a certain size would be outlawed anywhere in "free" country.


Bloomberg's doing it wrong, we've already established that. Still not buying the implication that drones will be used to monitor people's food choices. If that were the case, all these drones would be getting outfitted with tasers to zap greedy fat f*cks publically engaging in gluttony. ;) Which actually doesn't sound like THAT bad an idea... :lmao:

gbranton
06-19-2012, 02:34 PM
Bloomberg's doing it wrong, we've already established that. Still not buying the implication that drones will be used to monitor people's food choices. If that were the case, all these drones would be getting outfitted with tasers to zap greedy fat f*cks publically engaging in gluttony. ;) Which actually doesn't sound like THAT bad an idea... :lmao:

We agree that Bloomberg is doing it wrong if you are saying that people should be educated and left to choose as opposed to treating them like subjects, which is clearly his mindset.

I'm not saying I believe that scenario will ever take place, because in 2012 it sounds kind of far fetched but the world we live in IS changing rapidly and not for the better.

I don't see how anyone on this board could defend this use of military technology on American citizens. There have been threads posted here (which I agree with to some extent) saying that furniture is more of a danger to US citizens than terrorists and that the "war against drugs" is a senseless failure. So if you don't support the war on drugs and don't believe that terrorists are a threat here in America, then what legal, defensible purpose could a military drone serve in the skies above America? Why should we have to trust government not to misuse something that should never be allowed in the first place?

jhale667
06-19-2012, 02:40 PM
We agree that Bloomberg is doing it wrong if you are saying that people should be educated and left to choose as opposed to treating them like subjects, which is clearly his mindset.

I'm not saying I believe that scenario will ever take place, because in 2012 it sounds kind of far fetched but the world we live in IS changing rapidly and not for the better.

I don't see how anyone on this board could defend this use of military technology on American citizens. There have been threads posted here (which I agree with to some extent) saying that furniture is more of a danger to US citizens than terrorists and that the "war against drugs" is a senseless failure. So if you don't support the war on drugs and don't believe that terrorists are a threat here in America, then what legal, defensible purpose could a military drone serve in the skies above America? Why should we have to trust government not to misuse something that should never be allowed in the first place?

I think it's kinda being overstated...the example shown in the OP looks way more like an RC 'copter than say, a Predator drone. I don't see anything wrong with them being used for traffic surveilance and whatnot, probably a fair bit cheaper to maintain than a real helicopter. Agree there is a chance it could be abused, but that's why I stated the proper safeguards need to be in place first.

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 03:08 PM
We went from where politicians challenged us to reach a goal to being micromanaging dictators. We all know obesity is a problem and I find it extremely discusting how so many people have just let themselves go. The thing is I believe in freedom and allowing people to make choices. I don't want the government dictating everything we do in the name of helping us. What these politicians can do is offer a challenge and what would be cheaper than policing us would maybe giving an extra bonus incentive to people for being in their target weight. When I was in grade school you got a cool presidential patch for passing the president's physical fitness program. Maybe give a tax break to people who are in their target weight. Of course the lawyers will say this is discrimination and fat people will organize like the gays and demand special rights.

WACF
06-19-2012, 03:15 PM
We went from where politicians challenged us to reach a goal to being micromanaging dictators. We all know obesity is a problem and I find it extremely discusting how so many people have just let themselves go. The thing is I believe in freedom and allowing people to make choices. I don't want the government dictating everything we do in the name of helping us. What these politicians can do is offer a challenge and what would be cheaper than policing us would maybe giving an extra bonus incentive to people for being in their target weight. When I was in grade school you got a cool presidential patch for passing the president's physical fitness program. Maybe give a tax break to people who are in their target weight. Of course the lawyers will say this is discrimination and fat people will organize like the gays and demand special rights.

Seems every generation gets worse.

I look at the new hires I have to deal with...I can not understand the sense of entitlement alot of todays kids have.
There is no way they would of lasted 20 years ago...they would have been fired...today it is about coaching and being sensitive.

jhale667
06-19-2012, 03:25 PM
We went from where politicians challenged us to reach a goal to being micromanaging dictators. We all know obesity is a problem and I find it extremely discusting how so many people have just let themselves go. The thing is I believe in freedom and allowing people to make choices. I don't want the government dictating everything we do in the name of helping us. What these politicians can do is offer a challenge and what would be cheaper than policing us would maybe giving an extra bonus incentive to people for being in their target weight. When I was in grade school you got a cool presidential patch for passing the president's physical fitness program. Maybe give a tax break to people who are in their target weight. Of course the lawyers will say this is discrimination and fat people will organize like the gays and demand special rights.


Some (more forward-thinking) corporations actually offer their employees discounts on gym memberships, or financial incentives for completing health programs, etc. More should follow their example.

lesfunk
06-19-2012, 04:33 PM
since I am a fat bastard as well as a R/C aircraft Enthusiast/Instructor/retailer, I'm doubly fucked

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 04:34 PM
Some of the companies I worked for had great gym facilities. I mean this is nothing new. I just don't get why people choose the donuts and couch over being active. Everything is better when you are fit. Just the sex part is worth getting off your ass and doing some pushups for.

gbranton
06-19-2012, 04:37 PM
Some (more forward-thinking) corporations actually offer their employees discounts on gym memberships, or financial incentives for completing health programs, etc. More should follow their example.

Like Chris Rock said, you shouldn't get extra credit for doin what the fuck you're supposed to do.

Seshmeister
06-19-2012, 04:41 PM
Of course the lawyers will say this is discrimination and fat people will organize like the gays and demand special rights.

If you demand the same as everyone else that is demanding equal rights not special rights.

jhale667
06-19-2012, 04:46 PM
Like Chris Rock said, you shouldn't get extra credit for doin what the fuck you're supposed to do.


Yeah, but if you're NOT, your health insurance co-pays should be way higher than mine or anyone who is... and you should be pelted with rocks and garbage. Just sayin'. ;)

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 04:49 PM
Seems every generation gets worse.

I look at the new hires I have to deal with...I can not understand the sense of entitlement alot of todays kids have.
There is no way they would of lasted 20 years ago...they would have been fired...today it is about coaching and being sensitive.

The biggest complaint I hear from people who need employees to run their business is it's getting harder and harder to find anyone who is responsible and self starting. One guy told me he won't interview anyone under 30 years old. When I was a teen it was the World War II generation telling us how spoiled we were. I heard so much having to walk to school uphill both ways stories and shoveling snow with a teaspoon stories. The thing is we did have it good. They had to go through a depression and into a major war. Many went from high school to combat and didn't have the luxury to go to Van Halen concerts and chase the college girls. We certainly weren't babied. If a kid picked a fight with you, you were expected to finish the battle. I never was allowed to sit around and do nothing for hours. That just told mom and dad I had the time for them to put me to work. I think the big difference was mom was home to ride your ass. Kids today have both parents gone or only one parent. They are the only ones home with no supervision. I think that is the big difference. Nobody was around to really raise these kids properly because mom and dad were too busy chasing money or couldn't stay married and that is usually for selfish reasons. So the kids just got the shitty end of the stick because mom and dad had other interests.

ELVIS
06-19-2012, 04:52 PM
As long as they put the proper legal safeguards in place, I don't see it as intrusive.

That's the difference between you and someone who values freedom and understands what freedom is...

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 04:54 PM
Yeah, but if you're NOT, your health insurance co-pays should be way higher than mine or anyone who is... and you should be pelted with rocks and garbage. Just sayin'. ;)

Oh but the lawyers would say that's discrimination and not fair. What's fucking us is trying to make everyone equal. Well sorry folks there are winners and losers. We have this everyone is a winner mentality and it's unrealistic.



Real life isn't the fucking gay games where everyone is a winner.:biggrin: We have fallen to Sammy Hagar levels here.

jhale667
06-19-2012, 04:56 PM
That's the difference between you and someone who values freedom and understands what freedom is...

You're a pompous idiot. STFU.

ELVIS
06-19-2012, 04:57 PM
That's an intelligent response...slave...

jhale667
06-19-2012, 04:58 PM
Oh but the lawyers would say that's discrimination and not fair. What's fucking us is trying to make everyone equal. Well sorry folks there are winners and losers. We have this everyone is a winner mentality and it's unrealistic.

How's it unfair? They're making the choice to be unhealthy, I should pay more for your insulin because you drink a gallon of soda a day? But that's another thread...

jhale667
06-19-2012, 05:01 PM
That's an intelligent response...slave...

Yeah, and you wrote the book on clever posting you unemployed, marsh-dwelling redneck asshat.

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 05:10 PM
Yeah, and you wrote the book on clever posting you unemployed, marsh-dwelling redneck asshat.



Momma says drones are of the devil.

Dr. Love
06-19-2012, 08:15 PM
As long as they put the proper legal safeguards in place, I don't see it as intrusive.

Really? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The fact that this is allowed to happen and so casually accepted should be alarming, but it's only yet another let down where the people concede more of the rights and freedoms away to an ever-intruding government.

There are police departments in Texas that have ordered these things (if I recall correctly).

Dr. Love
06-19-2012, 08:17 PM
They already are. As soon as they fuck with the Internet, which they inevitably will try, the shit will hit the fan. Internet is the last bastion of free speech & sharing of knowledge and ideas. Governments HATE this. People in power HATE this.

When did we start electing officials to be in charge of us rather than represent us? Funny & odd how we hired & pay these people to do these things to us that we hate so much.

They are already fucking with the internet. Remember SOPA and PIPA? Lamar Smith (R-TX ... embarassingly enough) is a fucking moron. They are going to continue fucking with the internet.

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 08:31 PM
I think drones might replace clay pigeons as targets to shoot at.

Seshmeister
06-19-2012, 08:49 PM
They are already fucking with the internet. Remember SOPA and PIPA? Lamar Smith (R-TX ... embarassingly enough) is a fucking moron. They are going to continue fucking with the internet.

They will come under the pincer movement of terrorism and protecting children from pornography.

Nickdfresh
06-19-2012, 09:16 PM
...
I don't see how anyone on this board could defend this use of military technology on American citizens....

This isn't a new issue nor fear:

Hardrock69
06-19-2012, 09:51 PM
I see one of those goddamn things flying around my property, I will consider it skeet-shootin' time, and will go get the shootin' arn out.

ELVIS
06-19-2012, 10:00 PM
Ad you'll be in prison for terrorism without due process...

Dr. Love
06-19-2012, 10:51 PM
They will come under the pincer movement of terrorism and protecting children from pornography.

sadly that's true.

Nitro Express
06-19-2012, 11:08 PM
I see one of those goddamn things flying around my property, I will consider it skeet-shootin' time, and will go get the shootin' arn out.

It will make people mad as hell. As I say, they are going to push the public to the point where they have had enough and it snaps and the sleeping giant awakens. But then it's just history repeating itself. When the government says they have the rights to everything and we have no rights and we are just a social security number that generates tax revenue, that tends to piss people off. A dog gets vicious when it's cornered and harassed. Custer learned that at Little Big Horn and got his pompus ass handed to him.

ELVIS
08-01-2012, 10:08 AM
By: Rep. Ted Poe

For years, the United States has used drones to track foreign terrorists overseas and catch outlaws along the border. But now, thousands of drones are heading to the homeland. Drones are already used for certain purposes here in the United States, but the FAA will soon dramatically expand the use of drones to operate nationwide by the year 2015. It is estimated, by 2020, 30,000 of them will be flying in American skies.

Who and what will all of these new eyes in the sky be looking at? No one really knows. But whether we like it or not, the drones are coming.

Who will operate these drones, and what will be their mission? Could it be a suspicious government agent who thinks someone looks kind of funny? The EPA bureaucrat who wants to snoop on somebody’s farm and watch Bessie the cow graze in the pasture? Or a nosy neighbor who wants to make sure someone’s shutters are pretty and the flowers don’t violate the homeowners’ association rules? This is the kind of world that Americans could face as we enter this uncharted and unprecedented world of drone technology.

Just because Big Brother can look into someone’s back yard with a drone doesn’t mean they should. That’s why we have the Fourth Amendment. Congress has the legal obligation to ensure that the Fourth Amendment rights of private citizens are protected in this new “drone world.” You see, the Fourth Amendment says that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…” The Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment to stop this kind of government intrusion into our lives.

The Constitution limits eavesdropping, snooping, and spying on American citizens. While there are some legitimate uses for drones domestically, such as monitoring forest fires, floods and hurricanes, tracking an escaped bank robber, and other law enforcement uses, it is up to Congress to define and limit their use so that the Fourth Amendment and the right of privacy are protected.

That is why I am introducing the Preserving American Privacy Act. Now is the time for Congress to act, not in 2015. With the increased technology of surveillance, Congress must be proactive in protecting civilians from drone surveillance by law enforcement and other private citizens. This bill will ensure the privacy of Americans is protected by establishing guidelines about when and for what purpose law enforcement agencies, private citizens, and businesses can use drones.

First, it would prevent the FAA from issuing a permit for the use of a drone to fly in the United States airspace for the law enforcement purposes unless it is pursuant to a warrant and in the investigation of a felony. This would apply to Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. The warrant exceptions and exigent circumstances rules that are already the law of the land would be the same as those that are applicable in the Federal, State, or local jurisdiction where that surveillance occurs. The bill also includes a clear statement so that it does not prevent the use of drones for border security purposes. Bottom line: no one should be spying on you unless they have the legal authority to do so.

It would also prevent the FAA from issuing a permit to any private individual for the use of a drone for the surveillance of a U.S. citizen or the property of a U.S. citizen unless that person under surveillance has consented or the owner of the property has consented. There may be some other lawful exceptions as well. No one should be looking at another citizens’ private property unless they have permission to do so.

Lastly, this bill would ensure that no evidence obtained from the use of a drone may be used at an administrative hearing. This means that the EPA can’t spy on Bessie or claim that the water on a Nebraska farm is not clean enough.

Americans expect their constitutional rights, privacy and property will be protected by their government—after all that is the reason we have government in the first place. So, Congress must decide now when drones can and cannot be used in order to ensure constitutional safeguards. This decision cannot be left up to government agencies, special interest groups, or others. And it’s a decision that can’t wait.

Technology may change with time, but the Constitution does not.


link! (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/31/rep-ted-poe-the-drones-are-coming/)

jhale667
08-01-2012, 10:23 AM
Isn't there already a drone conspiracy thread??

ELVIS
08-01-2012, 10:27 AM
This is about a 4th amendment bill...

Maybe you should read before spouting off...

jhale667
08-01-2012, 10:29 AM
This is about a 4th amendment bill...

Maybe you should read before spouting off...


Still could've been in the other drone thread, doesn't deserve a separate one.

chefcraig
08-01-2012, 10:33 AM
Isn't there already a drone conspiracy thread??

You are thinking of the clone conspiracy thread, which if I'm not mistaken, got moved or outright dumped around a week ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRa3X6PX_ag

Nickdfresh
08-01-2012, 11:55 AM
Isn't there already a drone conspiracy thread??

Link? I'm not counting the idiotic "portrait of a drone-killer as a young man" thread...

*Merged...

Nickdfresh
08-01-2012, 11:56 AM
That is why I am introducing the Preserving American Privacy Act. Now is the time for Congress to act, not in 2015. With the increased technology of surveillance, Congress must be proactive in protecting civilians from drone surveillance by law enforcement and other private citizens. This bill will ensure the privacy of Americans is protected by establishing guidelines about when and for what purpose law enforcement agencies, private citizens, and businesses can use drones.

First, it would prevent the FAA from issuing a permit for the use of a drone to fly in the United States airspace for the law enforcement purposes unless it is pursuant to a warrant and in the investigation of a felony. This would apply to Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. The warrant exceptions and exigent circumstances rules that are already the law of the land would be the same as those that are applicable in the Federal, State, or local jurisdiction where that surveillance occurs. The bill also includes a clear statement so that it does not prevent the use of drones for border security purposes. Bottom line: no one should be spying on you unless they have the legal authority to do so.

It's hard to disagree with that...

jhale667
08-01-2012, 11:58 AM
It's hard to disagree with that...

True.


I don't have time to search for the link right now, but I distinctly remember a thread about increased civilian drone usuage, and it had a picture of a police drone 'copter in the OP....

Nickdfresh
08-01-2012, 12:00 PM
...
First, it would prevent the FAA from issuing a permit for the use of a drone to fly in the United States airspace for the law enforcement purposes unless it is pursuant to a warrant and in the investigation of a felony. This would apply to Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. The warrant exceptions and exigent circumstances rules that are already the law of the land would be the same as those that are applicable in the Federal, State, or local jurisdiction where that surveillance occurs. The bill also includes a clear statement so that it does not prevent the use of drones for border security purposes. Bottom line: no one should be spying on you unless they have the legal authority to do so.

....

It's hard to argue with that, except for the middle portion which is a bit too restrictive. Police can fly helicopters and fixed wing aircraft--why not drones provided there are restrictions on numbers and flight areas, and their purpose for being up there. Aside from the privacy issue, I would think large numbers of drones would pose a big hazard to both commercial aviation and private planes...

ELVIS
08-01-2012, 12:56 PM
And guns will provide a hazard to illegal drones...