dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4523
share rss forum feed


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

San Fransisco police getting drones

quote:
Remote-controlled aircraft known as drones will help their efforts to fight crime and make officers safer, and save taxpayers from the rising costs of fueling and maintaining helicopters.

»www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Pol···2638.php

They're just trying to save money. Really.

I wonder if they'll be using flower power

BTW I heard, through the grapevine, that they'll be getting them from Link Logger See Profile's Drone & Armament Rentals
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


hayc59
Im Your Huckleberry
Premium
join:2001-02-26
David R.I.P.
kudos:21

Great Idea bring it on!!



sashwa
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz
kudos:17

1 recommendation

reply to StuartMW

I believe that is Alameda County Sheriff Dept not SF police.



StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

My mistake. I see Alameda County covers Beserkeley. Sweet!
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!



sashwa
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz
kudos:17

And Oakland and a bunch of other towns. It's across the Bay from SF.


armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

5 recommendations

reply to StuartMW

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?

The key is not what they have but how within the law they use it. Abuse of authority is the same whether via a nightstick or a drone. Its the law and adherence to it that matters.



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

said by StuartMW:

... BTW I heard, through the grapevine, that they'll be getting them from Link Logger See Profile's Drone & Armament Rentals

Maybe. But in that case Blake would have been the low bidder... which probably means a balsa-wood airframe, rubber-band drive and a Kodak Instamatic camera for photo-recon.
--
"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

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to armed

said by armed:

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?

They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky?

Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


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

1 recommendation

said by OZO:

said by armed:

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?

They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? ...

Or fly into each other... or into commercial airliners... or into general aviation...
My understanding is that this is a very real problem already in Djibouti where the US flies drones over various hotspots in the Middle East.
Remote U.S. base at core of secret operations
quote:
...The drones and other military aircraft have crowded the skies over the Horn of Africa so much that the risk of an aviation disaster has soared. ... Predator drones in particular are more prone to mishaps than manned aircraft, Air Force statistics show. But the accidents rarely draw public attention because there are no pilots or passengers. ... The frequency of U.S. military flights from Djibouti has soared, overwhelming air-traffic controllers and making the skies more dangerous. ... Drones also pose an aviation risk next door in Somalia. Over the past year, remote-controlled aircraft have plunged into a refugee camp, flown perilously close to a fuel dump and almost collided with a large passenger plane over Mogadishu, the capital, according to a United Nations report.
--
"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


jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy

1 recommendation

reply to OZO

said by OZO:

said by armed:

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?

They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky?

Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"
--
JKK

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay



StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

And they'll get neither--at least not in the long run.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10
reply to StuartMW

Where's RoboCop!?!?


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

said by Dustyn:

Where's RoboCop!?!?

Alameda County evidently
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

ctggzg
Premium
join:2005-02-11
USA
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to armed

said by armed:

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having ...

The difference is that they're getting more efficient at enforcing the law, and that's what some people don't like. Look at the people who whine about red-light cameras. Few people complain about rolling through red lights being illegal because there aren't enough police to bust them for it. But as soon as cameras make it much more efficient, they whine and claim it's only about "revenue".

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to OZO

said by OZO:

said by armed:

What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?

They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky?

Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...

Dangerous? So what about helicopters or airplanes? What about cops with weapons? What about cop cars in car accidents? What about tazers that kill? Is it only new technology that must meet unstated safety requirements? Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes?

I had a neighbor that set his house on fire then hid on the hill behind my house with guns. They had no idea where he was because he had delay timers to start the fires. He damned near burned down the whole neighborhood.

They found him because they tracked his cell phone and used helicopters to pin point him. I had helicopters hoovering over the top of my house so low I could see the guys inside and I'm glad they were there.

So they used modern technology to track him. He was angry, dangerous and armed and committed suicide as the formed a line of cops to go up and get him. What.... they should have used nothing invented in the last 75 tears to track him?

Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.

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.



goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big
reply to ctggzg

said by ctggzg:

Look at the people who whine about red-light cameras. Few people complain about rolling through red lights being illegal because there aren't enough police to bust them for it. But as soon as cameras make it much more efficient, they whine and claim it's only about "revenue".

Probably because red-light cameras have been shown definitively to (a) not increase safety, and (b) raise revenue.

Are you seriously equating drones to red-light cameras?


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

said by armed:

said by OZO:

...
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky?

Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...

Dangerous? ... Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes? ...

The only real direct comparison at present is for one of the few agencies that actually flies drones and other kinds of aircraft, the USAF:
Drones Most Accident-Prone U.S. Air Force Craft
quote:
...
The U.S. military’s three biggest drones, made by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., are the most accident-prone aircraft in the Air Force fleet.
...
The Air Force in a 15-year period through Sept. 30 recorded 129 accidents involving its medium- and high-altitude drones: the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk. ...

Vertical-lift aircraft, including helicopters and the tilt- rotor V-22 Osprey made by Boeing Co. (BA) and Textron Inc. (TXT), had the second-highest accident rate, with 6.33 per 100,000 flight hours.
...
The Predator, made by General Atomics, has had 9.26 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, while its Reaper has had 7.96. ...
Obviously with other, smaller types of drones that civilian agencies will probably use, these military craft will not be equivalent in safety. For the smaller drones, the safety records are... unpublished. So we'll be left to assume the operation and maintenance performed by your friendly local police (or whomever) will exceed the US military's aircraft maintenance and standards or the FAA monitored/inspected commercial and general aviation requirements. Which, frankly should scare the daylights out of anyone. In particular, there's the operation of a drone in potentially crowded airspace: FAA Documents Raise Questions About Safety of Drones in U.S. Airspace
quote:
...Many drones and other small aircraft don’t have elaborate on-board detection systems to help them avoid crashes in the air, said Mel Beckman, a California mechanic and pilot who’s been flying for more than 30 years. People who don’t fly planes often are surprised to learn that pilots are required to “see and avoid,” which is exactly what it sounds like – keep a naked eye out for other aircraft. "There’s no way for a drone pilot to do that,” Beckman said. “He’s on the ground, and he’s looking through a small aperture..."
...
The FAA predicted four years ago that a sophisticated collision-avoidance system for drones could cost as much as $2 billion and was still far into the future. Regulators also anticipated then that a framework for broader drone flights in the United States wouldn’t be ready until sometime around 2020, according to the Government Accountability Office (.PDF), the investigative arm of Congress.
--
"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

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

3 recommendations

reply to armed

said by armed:

Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.

Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day:
said by jaykaykay:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"

This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us...

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.

We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

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

Just wait, a drone will crash into a house and the cops will weasel out of the huge lawsuit and the defense contractor that built it will get mysterious immunity even though it was their faulty aircraft.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to OZO

said by OZO:

said by armed:

Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot.

Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day:
said by jaykaykay:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"

This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us...

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.

We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality.

You have been less than convincing that using drones in lawful methods is any more an erosion of our rights than using say a helicopter, under cover surveillance cars, binoculars, infared machines, high powered guns, mace, tazers, dogs, undercover ops, riding bikes in the park, or using horses or wearing sneakers when on foot patrol.

You can quote old saws but it doesn't change the fact that if your argument holds water it has to apply to all tools use by the police. In fact there is no law in our Constitution, or in the plethora of federal, state or local jurisdiction laws that says modern inventions cannot be used by police unless they were available in 1776.

If your contention is that police can abuse power (and they can and do sometimes) then that issue is for the courts as they apply the use of these new tools. But I find it interesting that the hue and cry from the unwashed is that the police hands are tied by legal restrictions of liberals and criminals are running rampant in the streets.

So despite your hysteria drones are not the issue but proper use of our laws in using them is.

I'm on your side on not eroding our rights but we separate quickly when you argue that drones are bad but cars and helicopters and binoculars are fine.

cosmicChuck

join:2009-03-26
San Francisco, CA
reply to ctggzg

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.


Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

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



Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
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.

armed

join:2000-10-20
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 Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

1 edit

1 recommendation

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.


armed

join:2000-10-20
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..

OZO
Premium
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.

That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.

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..

I think you're right here...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

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!

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

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.


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

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!