Law enforcement has used aerial surveillance for decades. Drones are just a method of aerial surveillance that can be less expensive and more flexible. That lowers its cost and increases the frequency of its use and potentially misuse. The question should not be whether law enforcement uses it but rather what are the usage rules and what oversight of its use is available. I would tend to believe that its use is almost always appropriate but I would never want government to be trusted blindly. Originally Posted by LazExactly right. A cop walking by or sitting parked in front of your house while on patrol is more intrusive than a drone flying over at 5,000 feet if you ask me. The reality today is that you are video'd while driving through traffic lights and while walking on most downtown sidewalks. Who cares? If you're minding your own business and engaged in a lawful activity, I don't understand why it should bother you.
- timpage
- 06-20-2013, 03:44 PM
- BigLouie
- 06-20-2013, 06:08 PM
- CJ7
- 06-20-2013, 06:12 PM
in the event a drone is operating over your house, or office AS WE SPEAK, how will you know
maybe the first time I posed this question it was too difficult .... anyone ?
maybe the first time I posed this question it was too difficult .... anyone ?
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-20-2013, 07:09 PM
the tea tards would rather be dead than protected Originally Posted by CJ7Yeah, those morons! Actually preferring freedom over police state tyranny. What a bunch of idiots. Kind of like these guys:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
Entire speech, click here: http://www.history.org/almanack/life...ics/giveme.cfm
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
There are others, but I think I made my point.
- cptjohnstone
- 06-20-2013, 10:02 PM
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-20-2013, 10:13 PM
If you knew it was there, wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Why should Americans, in the Land of the Free, have to even wonder about this? We've become a nation of suspects, instead of free people. We are all guilty until proven innocent.
And people support this insanity. Herr Goebbels would be proud. I doubt if George Washington, James Madison and others from our founding would be proud.
And people support this insanity. Herr Goebbels would be proud. I doubt if George Washington, James Madison and others from our founding would be proud.
- Old Dingus
- 06-25-2013, 02:22 PM
Hmmmmm.
Journalist Michael Hastings sent chilling email to colleagues before death
Published June 24, 2013 FoxNews.com
Mere hours before the fiery car crash that took his life, journalist Michael Hastings sent an email to friends and colleagues urging them to get legal counsel if they were approached by federal authorities.
“Hey [redacted] the Feds are interviewing my 'close friends and associates,'" read the message dated June 17 at 12:56 p.m. from Hastings to editors at the website BuzzFeed, where he worked.
"Perhaps if the authorities arrive 'BuzzFeed GQ', er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues.”
Hastings added that he was onto a big story and that he would, “need to go off the radat [radar] for a bit,” according to KTLA
in Los Angeles.
Fifteen hours later, in the early morning of June 18, Hastings was driving a Mercedes C250 at a high speed when he lost control in Los Angeles’ Hancock Park neighborhood, causing the car to fishtail and crash into a palm tree. The impact caused the car to burst into flames, trapping the 33-year-old inside.
Conspiracy theories surrounding Hastings' death began to circulate almost immediately.
On Twitter and several sites across the web, speculation was rampant that the death of Hastings — whose 2010 article for Rolling Stone led to the resignation of U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, then head of the U.S. operation in Afghanistan — was no accident.
Also Friday, WikiLeaks released two messages on Twitter that added fuel to the fire.
“Michael Hastings' death has a very serious non-public complication. We will have more details later,” said the first. Two hours later, WikiLeaks tweeted more specific information.
“Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him,” the second message read.
It was speculated by others that Hastings was working on a story about Drone Surveillance in the U.S.
LAPD officials said on Friday that no foul play was suspected in the fatal accident, although that did little to quell theories about his death.
Investigators are trying to determine whether there was a mechanical problem with the car, according to the Los Angeles Times. The car burst into flames after hitting a tree in the one-car accident at 4:20 a.m. Law enforcement sources said the car was believed to have been traveling at a high rate of speed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24...#ixzz2XG0ZsnbN
I do not have any tin foil hats, but this is interesting to think about. I believe I will keep an eye on this for awhile.
Old Dingus
Journalist Michael Hastings sent chilling email to colleagues before death
Published June 24, 2013 FoxNews.com
This undated photo provided by Blue Rider Press/Penguin shows award-winning journalist and war correspondent Michael Hastings. (AP)
Mere hours before the fiery car crash that took his life, journalist Michael Hastings sent an email to friends and colleagues urging them to get legal counsel if they were approached by federal authorities.
“Hey [redacted] the Feds are interviewing my 'close friends and associates,'" read the message dated June 17 at 12:56 p.m. from Hastings to editors at the website BuzzFeed, where he worked.
"Perhaps if the authorities arrive 'BuzzFeed GQ', er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues.”
Hastings added that he was onto a big story and that he would, “need to go off the radat [radar] for a bit,” according to KTLA
in Los Angeles.Fifteen hours later, in the early morning of June 18, Hastings was driving a Mercedes C250 at a high speed when he lost control in Los Angeles’ Hancock Park neighborhood, causing the car to fishtail and crash into a palm tree. The impact caused the car to burst into flames, trapping the 33-year-old inside.
Conspiracy theories surrounding Hastings' death began to circulate almost immediately.
On Twitter and several sites across the web, speculation was rampant that the death of Hastings — whose 2010 article for Rolling Stone led to the resignation of U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, then head of the U.S. operation in Afghanistan — was no accident.
Also Friday, WikiLeaks released two messages on Twitter that added fuel to the fire.
“Michael Hastings' death has a very serious non-public complication. We will have more details later,” said the first. Two hours later, WikiLeaks tweeted more specific information.
“Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him,” the second message read.
It was speculated by others that Hastings was working on a story about Drone Surveillance in the U.S.
LAPD officials said on Friday that no foul play was suspected in the fatal accident, although that did little to quell theories about his death.
Investigators are trying to determine whether there was a mechanical problem with the car, according to the Los Angeles Times. The car burst into flames after hitting a tree in the one-car accident at 4:20 a.m. Law enforcement sources said the car was believed to have been traveling at a high rate of speed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24...#ixzz2XG0ZsnbN
I do not have any tin foil hats, but this is interesting to think about. I believe I will keep an eye on this for awhile.
Old Dingus
- CJ7
- 06-25-2013, 02:35 PM
Yeah, those morons! Actually preferring freedom over police state tyranny. What a bunch of idiots. Kind of like these guys:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
Entire speech, click here: http://www.history.org/almanack/life...ics/giveme.cfm
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
There are others, but I think I made my point. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
being DEAD is freedom? ... don't protect my casket, I have rights!
- i'va biggen
- 06-25-2013, 03:31 PM
If you knew it was there, wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Why should Americans, in the Land of the Free, have to even wonder about this? We've become a nation of suspects, instead of free people. We are all guilty until proven innocent.
And people support this insanity. Herr Goebbels would be proud. I doubt if George Washington, James Madison and others from our founding would be proud. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Why aren't you bitching about traffic cams and downtown cams plus the ones in convenience stores even subway???
- Guest032516
- 06-25-2013, 04:11 PM
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyGreat speech. I always wondered what Patrick Henry's slaves thought about it.
- CJ7
- 06-25-2013, 04:35 PM
in the event a drone is operating over your house, or office AS WE SPEAK, how will you knowstill no reply from anyone..
maybe the first time I posed this question it was too difficult .... anyone ? Originally Posted by CJ7
sooooooooooo, if you have no idea a drone is flying over your home or office, how can it invade your privacy?
- Old Dingus
- 06-25-2013, 04:54 PM
still no reply from anyone..I am not anyone, but I will answer. While I am not opposed to drone surveillance and see it as another price of maintaining our quality of life from those who would harm us, my answer to you question is simply that my awareness of the invasion of my privacy is not necessary to make it an invasion of my privacy.
sooooooooooo, if you have no idea a drone is flying over your home or office, how can it invade your privacy? Originally Posted by CJ7
If dearhunter is wiretapping me to get contact information of my best private stock, that is an invasion of my privacy whether I know he is monitoring or not.
If Olivia watches my nude yoga workouts, that is an unnecessary invasion because I would invite her in if I knew she was there (but it is an invasion until she is invited).
Again, I believe drones are a proper aid to law enforcement and prevention of terror, although I expect those utilizing it to comply with applicable laws.
Old Dingus
- Old Dingus
- 06-25-2013, 05:01 PM
As I posted, I thought about this and now wonder if you are referring to damages. If that is the case, then I am in complete agreement with what I think you are saying:
If one is not aware of the invasion of privacy, then one should not have damages.
Of course, clever lawyers would look for anything they could allege that might stick:
it hurt my business;
it makes me nervous and sick from worrying it will continue or happen again;
etc.
The Ben Franklin line of quotations are great, but none of that says anything about dying in a terroristic attack or dying in defense of this great country. I would prefer to trust the people running surveillance and hope that the risks of that trust still outweigh the potential loss of life and/or limbs of our military ranks.
Old Dingus
If one is not aware of the invasion of privacy, then one should not have damages.
Of course, clever lawyers would look for anything they could allege that might stick:
it hurt my business;
it makes me nervous and sick from worrying it will continue or happen again;
etc.
The Ben Franklin line of quotations are great, but none of that says anything about dying in a terroristic attack or dying in defense of this great country. I would prefer to trust the people running surveillance and hope that the risks of that trust still outweigh the potential loss of life and/or limbs of our military ranks.
Old Dingus
- CJ7
- 06-25-2013, 05:33 PM
As I posted, I thought about this and now wonder if you are referring to damages. If that is the case, then I am in complete agreement with what I think you are saying:pretty much it ... if I have no idea a drone is present and that drone keeps 1 or 1000 people from being killed by a terrorist attack, I'm certainly not selfish enough to bitch about drones
If one is not aware of the invasion of privacy, then one should not have damages.
Of course, clever lawyers would look for anything they could allege that might stick:
it hurt my business;
it makes me nervous and sick from worrying it will continue or happen again;
etc.
The Ben Franklin line of quotations are great, but none of that says anything about dying in a terroristic attack or dying in defense of this great country. I would prefer to trust the people running surveillance and hope that the risks of that trust still outweigh the potential loss of life and/or limbs of our military ranks.
Old Dingus Originally Posted by Old Dingus
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-25-2013, 10:10 PM
You all will love the police state. Enjoy!