 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to jaynick
Re: Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? said by jaynick:said by caffeinator:The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.
It never was nor intended to be democracy by our founders. Our nation is a constitutional republic.  Granted we have employed some democratic principles over time. democratic republic
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
sk1939Premium
join:2010-10-23
Washington, DC
kudos:9 Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by AVD:said by jaynick:said by caffeinator:The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.
It never was nor intended to be democracy by our founders. Our nation is a constitutional republic. Granted we have employed some democratic principles over time. democratic republic Wrong. The US is a constitutional/federal republic, as is:
Argentina, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia, South Sudan, Switzerland, and Venezuela.
The only countries that have "Democratic Republic" in their description are anything but. |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 | reply to AVD
Re: Why shoot them down?? said by AVD: with the number of keywords present in this topic, shout out to the various TLA anal-ists
No one mentioned jamming the gps navigation and landing it in their back yard?
Jamming GPS goes without saying. Of course that doesn't stop my spy drones as I said the government likes to think in the box, whereas some of us have a hard time finding the box, never mind getting into it.
I'm already on a number of 'lists' but I've asked them to add you to them as well, so when are we planning to overthrow the government? (that should about do it).
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
 jaaPremium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to FF4m3
Re: Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Only during deer season, except if you use a bow - then you can do it anytime. Best to avoid shooting the arrow straight up in the air though.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
|
|
| reply to THZNDUP
Re: Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Two words:
C02 LASER.
No falling ammo. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by disconnected :Two words:
C02 LASER.
No falling ammo.
you think Saddam didn't think of this?
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to FF4m3
lets step back for a second.
from time to time, we see postings of police cars parking in private driveways to observe compliance with traffic laws on the public highway. No reasonable person thinks itis legal, or morally justified, to vandalize the police car or endanger the officer. The proper action is to document the trespass, and inform the higher authorities; escalating the issue until the homeowner achieves satisfaction.
I would think that unauthorized intrusions by spy drones fall into the same category, notify the FAA and follow through.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
| said by AVD:lets step back for a second.
from time to time, we see postings of police cars parking in private driveways to observe compliance with traffic laws on the public highway. No reasonable person thinks itis legal, or morally justified, to vandalize the police car or endanger the officer. The proper action is to document the trespass, and inform the higher authorities; escalating the issue until the homeowner achieves satisfaction.
I would think that unauthorized intrusions by spy drones fall into the same category, notify the FAA and follow through.
Not the same at all. A cop in a driveway has a view of maybe a couple hundred feet. A drone can spy on you from miles away -- see in your backyard, etc. If fitted with thermal imaging, it can see you walking around inside your home. A big difference.
Cops do not need this technology. It is nothing but a power grab and a militarization of our police forces. This is something the founders wanted to avoid at all costs.
--
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 |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to FF4m3
Well, something to consider in all this is that a drone does not have to overfly your property boundaries to gather its information. In fact, much of the best intel data is collected at a slight offset angle so that all three dimensions of objects can be clearly discerned from altitude. That, in many/most situations, will place the drone over somebody else's property. So even if one had the right to "defend" one's airspace by splashing a drone, that does not extend to aggressively "defending" somebody else's.
Constitutional issues aside (and I believe there are some, though they may be murky), as I noted earlier, shooting down or crippling a governmental drone would be an... uhmm... 'extremely unwise' act, simply for the incredible amount of grief it would buy the shooter. "Living Hell" only barely describes what he would consequently experience after he violently confronted the world's largest bureacracy/military... something that needs to be kept soberly in mind. A 'patriot' might come to believe this would be something he needed to do - but he certainly should count the personal and collateral costs, which would be enormous. Assuming he was even "in the right"...
--
"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 |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by Blackbird:"Living Hell" only barely describes what he would consequently experience after he violently confronted the world's largest bureacracy/military... something that needs to be kept soberly in mind. A 'patriot' might come to believe this would be something he needed to do - but he certainly should count the personal and collateral costs, which would be enormous. Assuming he was even "in the right"...
Remember david koresh
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to KodiacZiller
said by KodiacZiller:said by AVD:lets step back for a second.
from time to time, we see postings of police cars parking in private driveways to observe compliance with traffic laws on the public highway. No reasonable person thinks itis legal, or morally justified, to vandalize the police car or endanger the officer. The proper action is to document the trespass, and inform the higher authorities; escalating the issue until the homeowner achieves satisfaction.
I would think that unauthorized intrusions by spy drones fall into the same category, notify the FAA and follow through.
Not the same at all. A cop in a driveway has a view of maybe a couple hundred feet. A drone can spy on you from miles away -- see in your backyard, etc. If fitted with thermal imaging, it can see you walking around inside your home. A big difference. Cops do not need this technology. It is nothing but a power grab and a militarization of our police forces. This is something the founders wanted to avoid at all costs. can you shoot the surveillance van that is hacking your wifi and looking into your house with thermal imaging or maybe broadcasting x-rays or millimeter microwaves through your house to a receiver on the other side?
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to FF4m3
Although this isn't here or there, would it not be just easier to use a hacked router or radio just to Jam the thing rather than shoot it down?
A conveniently placed jammer would seem to be way less risky than discharging a firearm, no?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | they can home on jam |
|
| reply to FF4m3
It's not really a question of "can we." Somebody (or a whole lot of somebodies) will, legal or not. And given Yankee ingenuity, the methods will get better and better.
There's an old saying somewhere about the tighter you try to hold something, the more things slip through the cracks. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:they can home on jam
Sure, but it's easy enough to set up your jammer away from your home but close enough to keep a drone from targetting/spying on you.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | reply to FF4m3
People have gone way overboard with their imaginary right to "privacy".
It's similar to the arguments against red-light cameras. People already know they're doing something wrong or at least illegal, and human officers can already bust them for it. What they don't like is technology making them easier to catch. They like to see a big police car so they can behave while they're in sight and then start speeding and running lights again as soon as they're clear.
In the case of drones, law enforcement already has ways to see and track down criminals. People just complain because newer technology is making the process more efficient and they don't know when someone is watching. |
|
| said by quatrix:People have gone way overboard with their imaginary right to "privacy".
It's similar to the arguments against red-light cameras. People already know they're doing something wrong or at least illegal, and human officers can already bust them for it. What they don't like is technology making them easier to catch. No, what we don't like is the fact a person can be fined even if someone else was driving the car and they were nowhere near the incident. Or the fact that red light cameras haven't been shown to actually reduce accidents and in many cases increase them, which is why so many jurisdictions that tried them are now pulling them out.
There are other objections as well, but that's a whole different topic. |
|
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:can you shoot the surveillance van that is hacking your wifi and looking into your house with thermal imaging or maybe broadcasting x-rays or millimeter microwaves through your house to a receiver on the other side?
Good luck to them hacking my WiFi.
Secondly, I am not advocating shooting drones. I am merely saying that surveillance by drones and surveillance by G-men sitting across the street in a Lincoln Towncar are two different animals. One is targeted, while another is a fishing expedition, "eye in the sky" type of surveillance.
This is nothing but another step toward militarizing Police (who have become increasingly like the military in the past 10 years). Pretty soon all Cops will be carrying M-4's, driving tanks, and carrying grenade launchers. They don't *need* these toys, they just want them to feel powerful. But then again, most Cops become Cops because they are on a power trip.
--
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 |
|
| reply to DKS
Thank goodness and a great call by our government to do so. |
|
