| reply to quatrix
Re: San Fransisco police getting drones It is painfully obvious you are quite oblivious to the intersection camera debate. Maybe you should watch less TV and spend time educating yourself on matters you feel necessary to give your opinion on. Your awful likening these to drones (much worse than a camera at an intersection) shows you are completely inept to speak on either topic. These "whiners" I would say have a right to complain. The tickets are an exorbitant fine the majority of which your community will never see. You too may one day receive mail from a business in a far off state which turns out to be a citation. This company has been caught shortening the length of time of yellow yield lights below the federal minimum (see Chicago). There is no oversight as to how these cameras are calibrated or how often. I hope you are never cutoff by a cube van and cannot see the light as had happened to me. In a 25 mph zone the photo's showed I was going 21 mph at the stripe & 23 mph in the intersection (as I sped up to avoid anyone fast off the light change). However, it failed to show the towering truck which cut me off and obstructed my view of the light. A police officer would've seen the delivery truck driver decide, without notice, to make a Left rather than a Right despite being in the Right lane (I was in the middle lane & fortunately far enough behind him). The officer has the ability to use reason and logic unlike a photo-machine. I went to court and entered my guilty plea only to later educate myself on the unscrupulous business practices of intersection camera companies. I wasn't too thrilled to find out my county saw about $200 and the corporation in China funneled through a corporation in Australia got more than $300 of the fine. How do you feel about the majority of the "revenue" not even going to your cash strapped township or county but rather to an overseas corporation?
I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it. With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | that is exactly why I am against all forms of automatic enforcement. A good cop knows to view the whole situation. from conditions when he saw the violation to the conditions of the road.
the camera knows none of this and its data is packaged at some third party company and mailed out. likely by people with no policing experience.
Cities love them because they hate good cops, Good cops know when a ticket is needed(such as blowing the red going over the limit.) Good cops limit an endless revenue stream. Same with speed cameras. on a clear dry day with minimal traffic I know for a fact here in NJ one can cruise along at speeds that are most certainly very much ticket worthy, State PD will ignore until one goes too far above or if they are driving unsafe(weaving through the slower cars like they are in the indy 500)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to armed
said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason.
That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point.
Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE.
Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that.
It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public.
It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Snowy:said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason.
That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point. Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE. Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that. It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public. It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance. Oh Snowy... do you expect me to respond to a reasoned post on this issue?  Do I have to put down my tin hat argument to discuss the issue? LOL
OK then, I'll try.
I'm not sure that police should not use drones because they not are readily available to the general public. That is not a test proscribed by law nor practiced in the past. I suppose a better example than cars would be helicopters and DNA testing. Neither is easily assessable to the public but we tend to accept their use.
That we are inventing devices that can be more easily used for excessive surveillance is worthy of great concern. I have a problem with the idea that a device can be set up to monitor legal activity of the general populace on a continual basis. In this case say keeping a drones in the air 24/7 as it peers into our houses and backyards looking for someone pissing under their tree. But to use them in an investigation or to look for a specific issue... say trailing a suspect in committing a crime seems to me to be a proper application of a useful LE tool.
But even then its a matter of semantics. Is a patrol car driving through a neighborhood really nothing more than mass monitoring for legal behaviour? So we already have an established accepted and lawful application that LE can observe the populace without any suspicion of illegal behaviour.
To me its the law that is in play here and not the device. Take GPS tracking devices as an example. The cops just can't legally attach a tracking device to your car and follow you indefinitely even if they have suspicion that you are involved in illegal activity. They can try to but the law can and does get in the way.
New devices are making it harder to get away with crime but I agree they may come at a cost of more mass surveillance and dangerous abuse. So we must insist that our courts and law making bodies define the differences to protect our freedoms and not just blindly prohibit use of new technology by LE because it might be abused.
Now back to tin hat and paranoia land... although I did enjoy your thoughtful response and appreciate having a normal discussion rather than a war of trite sayings. |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to StuartMW
I was really excited about this order as they asked us to paint flowers on the Hellfire missiles and put an old VW van logo on the nose of the MQ-9, so it was able to qualify for some 'culturally significant' programs to help cover the costs.
Blake
Edit it is a heck of a lot cheaper to run a drone then a helicopter so drones are the future in all sorts of areas. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
1 edit | reply to cosmicChuck
said by cosmicChuck:I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it. With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously.
I have a couple of issues with what you are saying in this paragraph.
1. You fail to describe why a drone is any more an invasion of privacy than an undercover cop watching you, or use of unmarked cars, or long range listening devices, or hilocopters, or DNA tests. Either they all violate our right or they all don't. ITS HOW THEY ARE USED NOT WHAT IS USED THAT IS OF CONCERN.
2. Upon election of a new President and the appointment of Supremes to match his religious and legal philosophy (IE litmus test judges at all Federal levels) any pretense to a supposed right to privacy will be erased from the law. In case you don't know (or in need of a reminder) Roe VS Wade was based on the supposition of a right to privacy and to control ones body. The raillying call of the religious and extreme right is that privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not therefore an inalienable right. The movement is called fundamentalism and they apply it to the Bible and to the Constitution.
We are one vote on the Supreme Court away from overturning the concept of right to privacy and in doing so all other "privacy rights" will disappear too. This screams that its not the tools used to enforce laws but the application of the laws that is really scary.
Far too many people think conservatism means getting "gubberment out of our lives." But in reality its only the libertarian that believes that. Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers.
To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.
Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck.. |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | said by armed:Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers. Giving police drones will serve exactly that purpose - moving control from people to police. After huge investments made into drone surveillance industry and making it acceptable by public, looking at the sky you'll never know, what the drone is doing there. Is it helping to solve the extreme rare useful purpose (like you've mentioned in your earlier post here), or is it used to observe what people are doing in this area (any suspicious gathering of people in groups, bigger then 3 person? what they're doing? where they're going?) or it's simply watching you for completely unexpected reason. There will be no way to make any distinction or know the actual purpose of its usage...
To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.
And that's why those, who want that control over population in their hands, will always facilitate that fear and erosion of beliefs (not only Christian, BTW). Look at what Hollywood is flooding this county with - huge stream of horror, scifi, mystery, twilight movies and other similar BS. Then someday some guy after watching this trash all night long wakes up, and, loosing control over understanding the difference between reality and what he saw in those movies, starts shooting people around. Then those people start asking government for new surveillance tools to protect them from what could happen... Got the picture?
Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck..
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
 ·CenturyLink
1 edit | said by OZO:That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.
BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| said by StuartMW:said by OZO:That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.
BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types. Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.
It appears to me you are suggesting that a saying from 238 years ago overpowers all when discussing the issue of LEGAL use of drones. Worse it appears that if I don't agree with your thoughts on drones then it must be because I'm too dense to understand its great deep meaning.
My equally insulting reply is that blind allegiance to trite sayings leads to intellectual blindness.
I agree in the saying... I don't believe its completely applicable to the LEGAL use of drones in LE.
I'll say it for the last time.
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
To believe otherwise is to believe that all tools used in LE must be banned because they have all been used illegally at one time or another and thus must come under purview of the quote. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by armed:Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.
Not sure if it was intentional or not but that was funny
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to armed
said by armed:...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
... And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.
--
"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 |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by Blackbird:said by armed:...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
... And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis. Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you.
The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse.
Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place.
Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course.
It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use.
"How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go" before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen?
That's the issue, IMO |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Snowy:said by Blackbird:said by armed:...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
... And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis. Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you. The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse. Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place. Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course. It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use."How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go" before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen? That's the issue, IMO Well...you're right. That is concise and good writing and you have asked the one question that cuts to the issue.
I will leave it at that. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to sashwa
|
|
 BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18
·Champion Broadba..
| reply to StuartMW
San Francisco? LOL! The chances of it being implemented are about the same as the Golden Gate Bridge be repainted purple.
San Francisco? If you know the City you have to ask yourself were there really people from there that thought they could sell such a sweeping idea? |
|
 sashwaPixie Cat Crunchin' n Foldin'Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz
kudos:15 | It's not the City. It's Alameda County which is across the Bay from the City. |
|
BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18 Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
| Well don't I feel like the fool! Nevertheless thanks for pointing out my error and misguided thinking. I sincerely appreciate it.
Alameda, home of Oakland v San Francisco. Uh, some differences there between the two large major metropolitan cities.
Now if we are talking Oakland toss in logistical support for the drones by Apache Longbows and Little Birds!  |
|
BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18 | Well good gosh, I'm not such a big fool after all. Only an uninformed poster. I say that as I realized I keyed off the THREAD TITLE: SF POLICE GETTING DRONES
 |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to Blogger
Sarcasm detector |
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Blogger
said by Blogger:Well good gosh, I'm not such a big fool after all. Only an uninformed poster. I say that as I realized I keyed off the THREAD TITLE: SF POLICE GETTING DRONES
Some out-of-state folks see it on a San Francisco news web site and draw the wrong conclusion about coverage. Unlike, say, Denver metro, or Houston metro, the S.F. Bay Area has two urban centers with a population over 800,000, two more of at least 200,000, and a half dozen at over 100,000 apiece.
Top four cities in population:
• San José - 971,372
• San Francisco - 805,235
• Oakland - 395,817
• Fremont - 214,089
The over 100,000 cities are: Santa Rosa, Hayward, Sunnyvale, Concord, Santa Clara, Vallejo.
There are nine counties in the S.F. Bay Area. San Francisco is the only city in San Francisco County; they have the same boundary. Alameda and Santa Clara Counties have three cities apiece with population of at least 100,000.
So if it is reported on a S.F. news site, it isn't necessarily S.F. news.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
