Police agencies in the United States to begin using drones in 90 days

reply to post by LazarusTsiyr


Right, I see. So if it was for this purpose, why are they heralding the use of drones by enshrining it in law, therefore making themselves plainly accountable for misuse?

You've clearly made your mind up about events that haven't happened or may not happen at all. That's a shame.

In passing, a reply in a thread with interaction between dozens of people does not contribute an attribution, if I had wanted to place these words as yours then I would have quoted you. Quite why you are so keen to have these words misattributed to you, I dont know.

reply to post by Hopechest


It all sounds so good on paper and yes, it would be great to
use this technology to find missing children...I smell a rat and
I wouldn't be too thrilled to see one of these drones flying around
my house or neighborhood.
We were also told,years ago,that buying the states lottery tickets
was good for our state and our schools.I just love how everybody
with an agenda exploits our nations children...it's for our childrens'
future. Don't you just love the tugging of your heart strings
over this?

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by LazarusTsiyr

 

Right, I see. So if it was for this purpose, why are they heralding the use of drones by enshrining it in law, therefore making themselves plainly accountable for misuse?

How does that make them accountable? The government can do as it pleases! Again, look at the Patriot Act and the NDAA as just two examples. And who defines misuse?! They do! So of course spying on "political dissidents" isn't gonna be a misuse. They will justify it by claiming they are protecting the population from "dangerous radicals."

You've clearly made your mind up about events that haven't happened or may not happen at all. That's a shame.

1) No, it's not a shame. It's based on history. It's not just something conjured out of thin air
2) If you want to sling that accusation against me then you need to do the same to Hope. She's doing the exact same thing on the flip side of the coin. And essentially so are you. You have "clearly made up your mind" about them not abusing the power or holding themselves accountable if there are abuses. It's laughable.

In passing, a reply in a thread with interaction between dozens of people does not contribute an attribution, if I had wanted to place these words as yours then I would have quoted you.

You responded directly to my comment. If you didn't want it to be directly applied to someone you could have just used the "Post Reply" option. You didn't. You responded to me. Therefore, it's perfectly logical for me to assume it was directed at me. In which case it would be a strawman because I said no such thing. If it was applied to someone else then you should have replied to one of their posts, not mine, and said it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Wouldn't everyone agree that if there is a kid missing in the woods that it would be nice to send up a bunch of drones to find them?

How about if a child is abducted and you can quickly get drones out on the roads to look for the vehicle description?

As long as their use is properly regulated I'm seeing many advantages to having them.

That is certainly a great way to use drones. That's what the predator's were first designed to do. Surveillance and Recon... Then someone realized that they can arm these things and use them as actual predators..

I think that the door on regulations has been intentionally left ajar regarding these drones. Start with the small ones to get people used to seeing them and slowly work larger and more capable drones into the mix..

Originally posted by Chansi3
reply to post by LazarusTsiyr

 

O.K. I Can't resist. How many Donuts can these drones hold safely? But back on topic, seriously, how many ways are needed to spy on people? Are they equipping these drones with coms that shout" Halt this is the Police or the Police will be here in 5 minutes do not move!

No of course not.

They are equipping them with Tasers.

www.vdicorporation.com...

reply to post by ComeFindMe


So, In summary IN your opinion: we are not a perfect society, drones are a criminal deterrent, possibly everyone should have one in the unknown future, and the Laz has made up his mind?

I recommend you read philosophy. Hope's view of the government being her favorite babysitter that makes her popcorn before a movie, and your desire to live in a federal prison environment is not absurd. It's suspect. And, convincing. Nuff said.

I don't know about all out drone attacks, but I assure you that EM countermeasure devices will be common if it comes to that.

reply to post by Hopechest



That's funny, maybe the two American Citizens killed in Yemen by a drone thought they would be safe to?

You would have to have an IQ of an potato (Or you love big brother ) To agree to having drones over us skies.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Wouldn't everyone agree that if there is a kid missing in the woods that it would be nice to send up a bunch of drones to find them?

How about if a child is abducted and you can quickly get drones out on the roads to look for the vehicle description?

As long as their use is properly regulated I'm seeing many advantages to having them.

Although I want to agree with what you said, as both situations are the kind that pull a fathers heart strings.

However, this is the exact same kind of reasoning that "they" use, so they can spy on everyone all the time. Never forget, once the .gov is aloud to fly a, as in 1 drone, they will assume they can fly 1 for every citizen.

Knce they are allowed one time, because of extenuating circumstances, to use on to kill a person here, they will have a green light to kill anyone, whenever wherever.

At a time like this I think it quite pertinent, to review the NDAA and all those other terrible things the idiot in the oval office loves.

It is obvious the NDAA has already been used against Americans, that is why they deflected than woild not answer wether or not is has already been used against Americans.

Remeber how they said this wasnt for Americans? Lol, ya and they dont wanna spy on everyone everysecond or kill people without due process, which is why it is soo important to keep doing these things that are obviously te first steps of the abuse of their office, against those they swore to defend.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine and I saw a drone flying over my house not once but twice a couple weeks back. It was so low I felt like I could've hit it with a sling shot. Both times it (or maybe they were two different ones, but they were flying at the same altitude) was flying east to west, almost directly over my street. 100% positive it was a Predator, was quite easy to tell.

Granted there's a large Ratheon plant about a mile away so maybe it was just in for some upgrades.

reply to post by LazarusTsiyr


Oh, please. I'll have to do a roll call next time I want to discuss the wider topic. Shall I send the same reply to five different people if they all have the same opinion?

Yeah, you are right, Hope is looking at it from the opposite end of the spectrum - however I happen to believe her opinion has a firmer grounding in common sense and likelihood. I am not a blind Government yes-man - there are plenty of tings they do that I do not agree with - but in spite of that, I am prepared to recognise that on this occasion, the likely benefits outweight the potential pitfalls.

The more power you have, the easier it is - and more likely it is - that you will abuse it. Someone with no power cannot abuse it! Therefore, it would stand to reason that episodes of abuse of power would be far more commonplace within Government or positions of authority. I'm not saying that's right or defending it, but it's a fact.

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

So, In summary IN your opinion: we are not a perfect society, drones are a criminal deterrent, possibly everyone should have one in the unknown future, and the Laz has made up his mind?

I recommend you read philosophy. Hope's view of the government being her favorite babysitter that makes her popcorn before a movie, and your desire to live in a federal prison environment is not absurd. It's suspect. And, convincing. Nuff said.

I don't know about all out drone attacks, but I assure you that EM countermeasure devices will be common if it comes to that.

Firstly, I didn't say that. I said "In a hundred years, even fifty years, every citizen may own their own drone. " Very different to saying everyone should have one. However, I do believe that this isn't a perfect society - it's very reasonable to conclude that things could be a lot better. I also believe that surveillance is a criminal deterrent and yes, I do believe that Laz has made up his mind.

I have read a considerable amount of philosophy, thanks. I try to abide by my rule of not arguing with idiots for fear of them dragging me down to their level and beating me with experience, though sometimes on this site I do bite! I'm a little confused about my apparent desire to live in a federal prison environment, i'd love to know what it convinces you of, other than a clear lack of telepathic abilities on your part. I digress.

I don't like the principle of surveillance - it reminds me there is a reason we need to be watched. Unfortunately, whilst the entire fanbase of ATS may (hopefully) be upstanding folk, the world outside is cold and harsh. There are many individuals who would seek to exploit the weak for their own gains. For that reason, I support the main drive of the original topic.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
reply to post by Hecate666

 

Hecate, you deserve at least one applause for that comment!! Where are all the mods at? At least one of yall applause Hecate for that! Please!!

I at least give you a thumbs up!

Wow, thanks. I also have found myself starring almost all of your posts on this thread before I wrote my posts. I'm quite trigger happy when it comes to good arguments!

Its funny how we become blinded by propaganda and completely forget HISTORY.

MOTF!

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
however I happen to believe her opinion has a firmer grounding in common sense and likelihood.

Well I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. How you could possibly think her idea that the government will police itself and prosecute misuse of drones is "common sense" is completely beyond me.

I am not a blind Government yes-man - there are plenty of tings they do that I do not agree with - but in spite of that, I am prepared to recognise that on this occasion, the likely benefits outweight the potential pitfalls.

As I said before, you think the ends justifies the means. I couldn't disagree more, as I stated in a comment above.

The more power you have, the easier it is - and more likely it is - that you will abuse it. Someone with no power cannot abuse it! Therefore, it would stand to reason that episodes of abuse of power would be far more commonplace within Government or positions of authority. I'm not saying that's right or defending it, but it's a fact.

So then how do you agree with Hopechest?!

reply to post by ComeFindMe


My comments were based on your statements. I meant you no ill intent. I just see drones flying around as living in a prison like society with UAV's instead of guards. Many philosophers have warned about the dangers of government control within a society. That was my point.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by nomnom

Originally posted by Hopechest

As long as their use is properly regulated I'm seeing many advantages to having them.

Can you see the many disadvantages of them? Who is going to oversee this regulation?

I can see possible disadvantages such as arming them but since we have surveillance on helicopters now and that hasn't been abused I don't see why your afraid of drones being used for surveillance.

If we make laws directing their use and they are misused then the courts will rule against them, there will be lawsuits filed, and that practice should stop.

You know the country advances technology wise as we move along through the decades and this seems to be just a natural progression. I'm sure when law enforcement started using vehicles instead of horses this issue came up just like it did everytime a new piece of technology was added to their arsenal.

I think its up to us to make sure the politicians keep it regulated so that they are only used for the beneficial advantages they do offer. Those can make a huge difference and I would hate to miss out on some of the great things they can provide us because of fears of what they may become.

I believe there is a safe middle road there somewhere.

Seriously, what if these "Drones" progress to the point of invading your privacy and peek into your windows? What if one did peek into your window and what was thought was "Illegal activity" and in reality it wasn't. It was just the angle or operators lack of law knowlenge, confusion and or mistaken conception of the event. And the next thing you know is a SWAt team is at your house and then your life is at risk? Think about what you think might be a good idea.

They've reached my line in the sand. Any and all robots I come into contact with are going down.

Doesn't matter what incarnation they are in, whether it's robot birds, insects, basic drone configuration, or whatever.... if I identify it as a robot, I will just assume I'm being attacked and it's getting destroyed one way or another.

I've had enough of the police state.

reply to post by Hopechest


Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Wouldn't it be great if we all needed to work less so we could have time to spare to volunteer and look for missing children?
Does the love of money make people start prostitution rings and human trafficking rings? Why do kids go missing in the first place?

Or better yet, wouldn't it be great if those who the state pays to find missing children do their jobs?

It's like saying this man made virus infected and killed thousands of people which includes
some murderers, rapist and some robbers so therefore it's good.

I apologize if I come off as harsh but this is not good for the US. IMHO

Originally posted by Hopechest
As long as their use is properly regulated I'm seeing many advantages to having them.

When is the last time ANY government authority remained properly regulated?

Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by Hopechest
As long as their use is properly regulated I'm seeing many advantages to having them.

When is the last time ANY government authority remained properly regulated?

Congress seems to regulate their pay raises quite well.

(sorry, had to be sarcastic for some reason)