Drones in U.S. Skies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49567

    Drones in U.S. Skies?

    Talk of drones patrolling US skies spawns anxiety

    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 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:

    The Federal Aviation Administration is an operating mode of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 06-19-2012, 10:58 AM.
  • Nitro Express
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Aug 2004
    • 32942

    #2
    One of these days they are going to push things too far where it just snaps.
    No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

    Comment

    • kwame k
      TOASTMASTER GENERAL
      • Feb 2008
      • 11302

      #3
      Not unless they outlaw couches and remote controls!
      Originally posted by vandeleur
      E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place :D

      Comment

      • jhale667
        DIAMOND STATUS
        • Aug 2004
        • 20929

        #4
        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...?
        Originally posted by conmee
        If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

        That is all.

        Icon.
        Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
        I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


        Originally posted by Isaac R.
        Then it's really true??

        The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

        OMFG...who in their right mind...???
        Originally posted by eddie78
        I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

        Comment

        • sadaist
          TOASTMASTER GENERAL
          • Jul 2004
          • 11625

          #5
          Originally posted by Nitro Express
          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.
          “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

          Comment

          • gbranton
            Veteran
            • Aug 2005
            • 1847

            #6
            Originally posted by jhale667
            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.
            "Don't want 'em to get you goat, don't show 'em where it's hid." - David Lee Roth

            Comment

            • jhale667
              DIAMOND STATUS
              • Aug 2004
              • 20929

              #7
              Originally posted by gbranton
              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...
              Originally posted by conmee
              If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

              That is all.

              Icon.
              Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
              I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


              Originally posted by Isaac R.
              Then it's really true??

              The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

              OMFG...who in their right mind...???
              Originally posted by eddie78
              I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

              Comment

              • gbranton
                Veteran
                • Aug 2005
                • 1847

                #8
                Originally posted by jhale667
                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...
                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?
                "Don't want 'em to get you goat, don't show 'em where it's hid." - David Lee Roth

                Comment

                • jhale667
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 20929

                  #9
                  Originally posted by gbranton
                  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.
                  Originally posted by conmee
                  If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

                  That is all.

                  Icon.
                  Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
                  I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


                  Originally posted by Isaac R.
                  Then it's really true??

                  The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

                  OMFG...who in their right mind...???
                  Originally posted by eddie78
                  I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

                  Comment

                  • Nitro Express
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Aug 2004
                    • 32942

                    #10
                    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.
                    No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                    Comment

                    • WACF
                      Crazy Ass Mofo
                      • Jan 2004
                      • 2920

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nitro Express
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • jhale667
                        DIAMOND STATUS
                        • Aug 2004
                        • 20929

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Nitro Express
                        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.
                        Originally posted by conmee
                        If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

                        That is all.

                        Icon.
                        Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
                        I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


                        Originally posted by Isaac R.
                        Then it's really true??

                        The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

                        OMFG...who in their right mind...???
                        Originally posted by eddie78
                        I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

                        Comment

                        • lesfunk
                          Full Member Status

                          • Jan 2004
                          • 3583

                          #13
                          since I am a fat bastard as well as a R/C aircraft Enthusiast/Instructor/retailer, I'm doubly fucked
                          http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

                          Comment

                          • Nitro Express
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 32942

                            #14
                            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.
                            No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                            Comment

                            • gbranton
                              Veteran
                              • Aug 2005
                              • 1847

                              #15
                              Originally posted by jhale667
                              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.
                              "Don't want 'em to get you goat, don't show 'em where it's hid." - David Lee Roth

                              Comment

                              Working...