dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6441
share rss forum feed


FF4m3

@bhn.net

Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones?

We've seen depictions of hostile airbore spy-cameras used in numerous science fiction TV shows and films (ie. Outer Limits, Terminator, etc.). And in those shows we've seen the revolutionary terrorists (freedom loving peeps) shooting them down.

Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Question Looms:

"Every single day / And every word you say / Every game you play, every night you stay / I'll be watching you
Oh, can't you see / You belong to me?
"

...that famous line of Sting and the Police perhaps best summarizes the warning delivered in a report released last week by the Congressional Research Service that suggests the growing army of drones flying over the U.S. airspace could be used to continuously monitor U.S. citizens.

Some companies are examining the possibility of deploying armed drones (war drones) over U.S. soil to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies a weapon in the sky to use against "criminals".

Based on current U.S. court precedent, the report hypothesizes that courts would deem nano-drone visual or heat-image surveillance of U.S. citizens inside their homes to be illegal. However, it is less clear whether drones would be disallowed to stalk Americans in their backyards, swimming pools, deck, or porch. And intelligence agencies would likely be able to freely spy on people in public locations.

The good news is that there are several proposals floating around Congress to block using drones to spy on Americans without warrant. The bad news is that past efforts to limit warrantless drone use have been largely struck down, and that the current efforts do not necessarily ban all kinds of warrantless use.

One aspect of the measure not discussed by the report is what the legal rammifications would be of a legally armed U.S. citizens shooting down or hacking a drone that was spying on them or a nearby neighbor. As unlikely as that scenario sounds, it could happen if use soars.

It can be safely presumed that the responsible agency would try to charge the citizen for destroying federal property, obstruction of justice, or other similar charges. The real question is what the courts would make of such a case.

Links at site.


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

Most people couldn't hit water if they fell out of a dingy in the middle of the ocean, shooting down a spy drone, unlikely. So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be?

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o


Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


DownTheShore
Honoring The Captain
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14
reply to FF4m3

It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go? If you post a sign on your property warning others away, would the drone's incursion count as deliberate trespass?



THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to Link Logger

Finally, a use for the Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter Flugzeugabwehrkanone 36 sitting in the back yard.

Sure gonna upset the neighbors though..............
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything



KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2
reply to Link Logger

said by Link Logger:

So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be?

(youtube clip)

The difference would be twofold:

1) Commercial airliners are not spy planes.

2) Commercial airliners have human beings aboard who would be killed. Drones do not.

I don't like the idea of these drones but I think there is some overreaction going on. What would be concerning to me is not what they can see outdoors, but what they can see *indoors.* When I go out in public, I don't have much of an expectation of privacy, but sitting in my home is another story.

Supposedly it will be illegal for these drones to be able to use thermal imaging (and other methods of seeing through walls) in the U.S., but how can we trust the government to do the right thing and follow the law? They don't have a very good track record of not abusing such technologies or infringing on the 4th amendment (a la NSA and AT&T).

Moreover, I fail to see how these drones will help whatsoever in preventing crime or terrorism. It's just security theater.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999


THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2
reply to DownTheShore

said by DownTheShore:

It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go? If you post a sign on your property warning others away, would the drone's incursion count as deliberate trespass?

quote:
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos ("For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.")
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

I'd guess that aspect would be preempted by any number of 'local' ordinances as well as common sense regarding the discharge of firearms into the air.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to DownTheShore

A primer on air rights:
»www.planning.org/pas/at60/report···int=true

Air rights are there, but governments have put limits on them thru legislation - usually at the municipal level for development efforts.

But nationally, in 1926 the Air Commerce Act took away most peoples claim to air rights above about 500 to 1000 ft above your house.

»www.straightdope.com/columns/rea···my-house

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground. You see the practical effect of this. One minute you're lord of all you survey; the next you're living under the interstate.

Usque ad coelum as a principle of private ownership was formally given the boot by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Causby (1946). The court laid down a new rule: you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land. Military aircraft using a nearby airport during World War II had flown over the Causby family chicken farm at an altitude of 83 feet, scaring the chickens and rendering the property unfit for the raising thereof. The court generously ruled that the Causbys had a right to compensation. Big of them, wasn't it? Bah. Under the previous system Old Man Causby could have taken out a few bombers with his shotgun, and that would have been that.


--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Link Logger

said by Link Logger:

Most people couldn't hit water if they fell out of a dingy in the middle of the ocean, shooting down a spy drone, unlikely. So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be?

Guess that you need to be updated about low level hoovering capable insect/bird sized drones...

Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance

Bugs in the sky: Boeing showcases hard-to-detect drones that behave like a 'swarm of insects'

US military surveillance future: Drones now come in swarms?


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to DownTheShore

said by DownTheShore:

It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go?

It's 'public' airspace under US government (or the nation in which you reside) jurisdiction.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3

In a previous thread it was discussed that drone tech is now inexpensive enough for private individuals to build and fly their own drones to purposefully spy on...?



leibold
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-09
Sunnyvale, CA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to THZNDUP

said by THZNDUP:

Finally, a use for the Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter Flugzeugabwehrkanone 36 sitting in the back yard.

At that Kaliber you only need to fire blanks to take down any drone (I have seen what blanks fired from a 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft cannon can do).
--
Got some spare cpu cycles ? Join Team Helix or Team Starfire!


THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2

I was thinking of using the FLAK 88 for the armed drones higher up since the city declined my permit for a missile battery. If fact, they even have an ordinance banning the discharge of BB/pellet guns.....

My Army unit had one of their 3inch anti-tank tubes (firing 75mm blanks) that every so often would emit a perfect smoke ring. At about 100ft out of the barrel it would be about 30ft in diameter. Never had a camera ready when it would do that, darn.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to THZNDUP

said by THZNDUP:

I'd guess that aspect would be preempted by any number of 'local' ordinances as well as common sense regarding the discharge of firearms into the air.

Yup, pretty sure most civilized places have laws covering discharging ammunition in the air due to property damage and injuries from falling ammo.

One day you think you're just trying to take a drone down and 2-3 days later you get the FBI knocking on your door because you injured/killed a neighbor 2-3 blocks away with a stray bullet. Trying to shoot the drone would not feel like such a bright idea anymore.


FF4m3

@bhn.net

said by InvalidError:

Yup, pretty sure most civilized places have laws covering discharging ammunition in the air due to property damage and injuries from falling ammo.

Some privately/militarily deployed 'insectoid drones' might be taken out by the use of a low-tech flyswatter.

lcnoble

join:2006-11-11
Nancy, KY
reply to FF4m3

So now we need to discuss the cost of a giant 2 way mirror awning or a photon jamming device, while considering present or future laws relating to the use of said devices.



Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

We've seen depictions of hostile airbore spy-cameras used in numerous science fiction TV shows and films (ie. Outer Limits, Terminator, etc.). And in those shows we've seen the revolutionary terrorists (freedom loving peeps) shooting them down.

Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Question Looms:

... The real question is what the courts would make of such a case.

...

I suspect the real question is whether anybody actually wants the compounded grief that shooting down any drone would cause. Whatever else "the courts would make of such a case", they (and the various agencies flying such things) can almost be guaranteed to make one's life a living Hell of litigation, compounded charges, bonds, fines, confiscations, appeals, re-filing of updated charges, ad nauseum for taking such direct action. Not to mention all the lawsuits arising from the collateral damage when the thing crashed. To modify an old Air Force saying: there are old patriots and there are bold patriots, but there are no old, bold patriots.
edit: typo
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium
join:2005-01-16
WA, USA
kudos:4

3 edits

2 recommendations

reply to FF4m3

FAIK, destroying Gov't and/or Military property will get you severely messed up. Different set of rules for them folks, we used to know that.

This sue-happy MINE MINE MINE BS is gonna end this country.

Go ahead, take a hammer to a T-38 or F-16 and see what happens. I'm guessing we won't be seeing you for awhile.

You shoot at a USAF craft, they can shoot back. Do you have Tomahawks? Because they do. Not to mention what may happen if an armed drone falls into your residential space might not be to your liking.

Also, Patriot Act...i.e., you and everyone you know would not like it. The U.S. Gov't owns this country and its airspace, you don't.
Firing at a US warbird will make you an enemy combatant. Meaning you no longer have rights.

Since 9/11, the gloves are off if they so desire. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.

--

My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages



FF4m3

@bhn.net

said by caffeinator:

The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.

+1


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

I suspect the real question is whether anybody actually wants the compounded grief that shooting down any drone would cause.

Exactly. A population that's under 24/7 surveillance coupled with fear induced passivity.

The Perfect New American Dream.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

reply to caffeinator

said by caffeinator:

The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.

The US was never a democracy. From the very beginning it was a republic.
»www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri···rep.html
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/


fan13027

join:2008-10-26
Winnipeg, MB
Reviews:
·Shaw

1 recommendation

reply to caffeinator

said by caffeinator:

The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.

Hmmmm, up here in Canada I was always taught in school that the USA was a Republic not a Democracy.

Your pledge of allegiance ...

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ..."

Just sayin


rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA

Replace "my flag" with "the flag of the United States of America" and you will have it right so far as it goes. It is a republic, not a democracy. I challenge anyone to name a true democracy among nations. All seem to have representative governments of some sort, at least the legislative part.
--
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to FF4m3

Sure. If you want to be charged with Terrorism and destruction of Government property and various other charges... and then arrested and imprisoned or maybe just disappeared (terrorism laws, after all.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to DownTheShore

said by DownTheShore:

It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go?

I can already answer that. You have no rights above your actual property in terms of flying objects passing over.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FF4m3

the drones do fly pretty high so I doubt most americans have good enough aim to hit it with weapons they commonly have.

That said if some operator is dumb enough to fly really low over some guy's farm house thinking hes funny(say 100ft), I think the farmer has every right to load up 00 Buck and shoot it down.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to fan13027

said by fan13027:

said by caffeinator:

The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.

Hmmmm, up here in Canada I was always taught in school that the USA was a Republic not a Democracy.

Correct.

This is more accurate:
"The United States of America is the self-professed greatest democracy in the world."

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition.

Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". The subdivisions of the Soviet Union were described as republics and two of them – Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR – had their own seats at the United Nations. While the Constitution of the Soviet Union described that union as a "unitary, federal and multinational state", it was in reality a unitary state as each Soviet Socialist Republic was dominated by the Communist Party.

Today the term republic still most commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right.

In liberal democracies presidents are elected, either directly by the people or indirectly by a parliament or council. Typically in presidential and semi-presidential systems the president is directly elected by the people, or is indirectly elected as done in the United States. In that country the president is officially elected by an electoral college, chosen by the States, all of which do so by direct election of the electors. The indirect election of the president through the electoral college conforms to the concept of republic as one with a system of indirect election. In the opinion of some, direct election confers legitimacy upon the president and gives the office much of its political power. However, this concept of legitimacy differs from that expressed in the United States Constitution which established the legitimacy of the United States president as resulting from the signing of the Constitution by 9 states.

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people.

However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy.

In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums.

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."

From the U.S. Dept. of State:
Democracy:

Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests.



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd:

the drones do fly pretty high so I doubt most americans have good enough aim to hit it with weapons they commonly have.

Evidently you have not read all the previous posts.


Ike1

join:2012-06-02
Newark, NJ
reply to FF4m3

Note that drones have already been used in domestic law enforcement:
»articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10···20111211



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to FF4m3

Your Homeland Security is already using Preadator drones for border surveillance.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.



Insight6

join:2012-08-25
reply to fan13027

Officially and legally the United States is a Federal constitutional based Republic. It operates and is colloquially or socially/legally viewed as a republic with strong democratic principles.

It is colloquially or socially commonly referred to as a democracy.