dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36
share rss forum feed

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

5 recommendations

reply to StuartMW

Re: San Fransisco police getting drones

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.


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

1 recommendation

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
USA
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!


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...

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit

1 recommendation

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
Space Elf
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.

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!


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


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

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

armed

join:2000-10-20
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.
Expand your moderator at work

mbeckman
Premium
join:2004-09-06
Ventura, CA

2 recommendations

reply to armed

Re: San Fransisco police getting drones

"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..."

Armed,

You're wrong, and you could well be dead wrong. Drones are dramatically more dangerous than manned helicopters and aircraft, because drones are technically incapable of complying with current aircraft traffic separation rules. I'm an instrument rated pilot and also a licensed aerospace technician, and I can assure you that drone operators do not have the visual acuity through onboard video to "see and avoid" other aircraft in the visual flight rules (VFR) environment. "See and avoid", not radar, is the only FAA-sanctioned method for maintaining aircraft separation in VFR, which are the only rules under which drones can operate.

If a drone were to hit an airliner full of people, the results would likely be catastrophic. Perhaps you recall the Cerritos disaster in Los Angeles a few years ago? That happened despite four sets of active human observers, which are far more reliable than radar or remote video imaging.

Someday the technology may exist for safe mixing of drones and human-piloted aircraft. That day is years, if not decades, away. Until then, drones must not be permitted to share airspace with civil aviation in the US.



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

Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best). I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore.

Blake
Hey for you next party, want some pyrotechnicals that are better then your neighbor's last party, no problem we are now renting MQ-9 Reapers for parties as nothing beats the pyrotechnical show of 14 hell fire missiles hitting your neighbors house. Finally Shock and Awe for the average Joe who is just trying to keep up with (and maybe eliminate) those pesky Jones.
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool



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

said by Link Logger:

Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best). I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore. ...

Most police drones will be significantly smaller than a light airplane... which means the visual cross-section they present will be far harder for others to detect. It's much like the problem of motorcycles on roadways... most cycle-car collisions occur because a motorcycle subtends a much smaller visual angle than a car at the same distance and approach speed, and this is tremendously significant when a car driver is looking down a road for oncoming traffic before he pulls out. Too often, he simply cannot discern the changing motion angle of the cycle... that is, it appears either invisible or as a fixed object to his glances.

In piloted aircraft, this phenomenon gets magnified many-fold, since the velocities of the objects involved can typically be anywhere from 10 to 50 times greater than the scenario with automobiles and motorcycles. The ability to visually detect a moving object against a background depends on the ability to discern the changing position of that object against the relatively slow-moving background. Doing this repeatedly or continuously produces a sense of object velocity and direction. But if the object is small and moving fast, there will usually be great difficulty in picking up the object as it moves - that is, at best it will seem to pop in and out of view as it moves across various background contrasts. This robs the brain of its necessary data updates for detection and decision-making, which causes impairment of its ability to even sense movement, let alone determine direction and velocity. All of this occurs against a backdrop of potentially very high-speed closing velocities where increased detection and faster reaction is actually demanded.

Frankly, there's little concern about the low-probability case of two drones hitting each other... other than the small area affected by the debris field, it's not likely to be a big deal. But one should care a great deal if they're in a conventional aircraft (commercial or general aviation) that gets mid-air'd by a drone that was too small to see and avoid. Moreover, the pilot of a police drone is not going to be staring at 15 different, omni-directed sensors on the craft looking for airplanes - he's going to be staring at the primary down-looking sensor output that shows what ground objects are beneath and directly ahead of his flight path. These drones are not going to be equipped with effective collision-avoidance systems that somehow magically alert the operator to incoming traffic or automatically cause the drone to take effective evasive action... the former would be false-alarm prone and the loop-time too slow to be of any use, while the latter would cost far too much money to install and maintain for the drones to be economically feasible.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville


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

I have to disagree with you as the reason why motorcycle are involved in more accidents has to do with the speed at which they travel relative to the speed of cars, as they tend to travel faster which means they are constantly moving into and out of blind spots and hence statically spend more time in blind spots then cars. If you and me are driving cars down the freeway, typically we will travel at the same speed (likely over the posted limit), but we will setup such that we can see each other (ie you won't sit in my blind spot). Now motorbikes tend to drive faster then cars means they are passing more cars when means they are passing through more blind spots, hence the majority of the problem (one of the reasons for speed limits).

Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic.

The other thing is if my drone is going down, I don't mind going vertical if it means I miss everything, ie my drone doesn't even register on the importance scale (ie I'm not trying to save it) unless of course it has ordinance onboard in which case a nice big bay is always a good place to lose the boom to (reason why the English Channel is full of all sorts of goodies).

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


mbeckman
Premium
join:2004-09-06
Ventura, CA
reply to Link Logger

Link Logger,

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The sensors in drones give operators nowhere near the visual acuity and collision avoidance capability of human pilots. The idea that a drone pilot has anything approaching a panoramic view with the slew rates of human eyes is a total fantasy. You're falling for the "CSI" effect: believing science fiction represents today's technical capability.