Bird-sized aerial drones being deployed to spy on citizens

[kingnereli]

not the same thing... if a A300 buzzes my house at 400 feet and 40 miles and hour,,,were going to have big problems...

whats the problem here??? why not stand up for freedom on this??? why not stand with the PEOPLE in any argument over whether this is a good idea??? why do some people EVER want to stand up for more government power???

It is the same thing from a legal standpoint. You own the rights to the air you can legally use. Unless you have a 40 story structure on your property anything coming in at 400 won't hit your airspace and will, therefore, not be trespassing as Jack suggested. The article even references a 1986 SCOTUs decision saying that police do not need a warrant to fly a small plane at legal altitude to view what is in plain sight.

Regarding freedom, I'm just not willing to jump the gun. There is no reference to spying or illegal activity in the article. The use of the drones is extremely rare at the moment and the uses sighted in the article were things like searching for lost hikers in rough terrain, collecting weather data and monitoring the border. Surveillance of private homes will be accompanied by a warrant. The peeping tom comparisons are quite disingenuous.

As I said in my previous post, this is still an open debate and there will regulations determining the use of unmanned drones in law enforcement roles. As long as their use remains constitutional there is nothing to complain about. In other words, I will stand up for freedom when it is actually under some threat. I won't puff up a non-story just so I have something to complain about.

 

[navarre1095]

Actually, craft like that are starting to be used to read water meters.

 

[Jack Ryan]

You only have air rights to the airspace that you can reasonably use. A drone 400 feet over your house is not trespassing. How often have commercial jets asked your permission to enter your airspace? Same thing.

There is special legislation allowing for that use of the air space over your property that you still own. There's no mention of allowing unmanned spy tools to make use of your property to spy on you.

Just like the land under the telephone wire, you still own it. Allowing phone wires is not a public access for the rest of the world to use, it is a legal access for phone wires.

Legislation written to allow for commercial use of air space you still own over your home is still yours. How many times have the hotel chains and condo developers just built straight up on each side of stuborn land owner and then over the top of him 400 feet up? Same thing.

Deep as you can dig, as high as you can fly, if you own it, you own it. Fly your snooper junk over it or shoot bullets over it to targets on the other side, there will be trouble.

 

[kingnereli]

There is special legislation allowing for that use of the air space over your property that you still own. There's no mention of allowing unmanned spy tools to make use of your property to spy on you.

Just like the land under the telephone wire, you still own it. Allowing phone wires is not a public access for the rest of the world to use, it is a legal access for phone wires.

Legislation written to allow for commercial use of air space you still own over your home is still yours. How many times have the hotel chains and condo developers just built straight up on each side of stuborn land owner and then over the top of him 400 feet up? Same thing.

Deep as you can dig, as high as you can fly, if you own it, you own it. Fly your snooper junk over it or shoot bullets over it to targets on the other side, there will be trouble.

Aren't you willing to give this enough time for the public debate to produce results and to await the regulation defining the acceptable use of these drones before drawing a final conclusion? Do you see that, regardless of the nuances of air rights, a warrant will needed to use these over private property so your average law abiding citizen doesn't have any reason for concern, at least not yet?

 

[Gabriel]

Aren't you willing...

Oops, that's already a negative.

 

[kingnereli]

Oops, that's already a negative.

So panic before anything illegal or nefarious has happened? Got it.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Aren't you willing to give this enough time for the public debate to produce results and to await the regulation defining the acceptable use of these drones before drawing a final conclusion? Do you see that, regardless of the nuances of air rights, a warrant will needed to use these over private property so your average law abiding citizen doesn't have any reason for concern, at least not yet?

I'm not even willing to finish reading to the end of that post. If I see it over anything I own and I didn't give it permission to be there, I'll shoot at it with what ever I have in my hands. If I get it on the ground I'll shoot it again and bury it in HNF or throw it down a well out there.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I love to walk around naked.

 

[Duncan]

PULL !!

 

[Kick]

I'm READY!!!!

​

 

[rambone]

CNN debate

This issue was brought up on CNN and is moving closer to fruition in Yourtown, USA.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA44rc06nbc[/ame]

 

[88GT]

resistance is feudal

is that some type of freudian slip? Because I either way.

 

[rambone]

Drones could patrol in U.S., FAA says

Drones could patrol in U.S., FAA says

"It's going to happen," said Dan Elwell, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Association. "Now it's about figuring out how to safely assimilate the technology into national airspace."
That's the job of the Federal Aviation Administration, which plans to propose new rules for the use of small drones in January, a first step toward integrating robotic aircraft into the nation's skyways.The agency issued 266 active testing permits for civilian drone applications but hasn't permitted drones in national airspace on a wide scale out of concern that the pilotless crafts don't have adequate "detect, sense and avoid" technology to prevent collisions.

 

[KG1]

I suppose the next step would be to arm these drones so they can take out american citizens that are suspected of being terrorists.

 

[lrahm]

I can't wait to get mine! I need to spy on my neighbors.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I suppose the next step would be to arm these drones so they can take out american citizens that are suspected of being terrorists.

Yep, that would be a HUGE step in the wrong direction, since there are already legal means of handling suspects in the United States, unlike overseas in hostile countries like Somalia, Yemen, or Pakistan.

IF that step is taken (arming drones for use in the US), then I'll take back all my comments about Rambone and his tinfoil hat collection. No, seriously.

 

[lrahm]

Can I get mine with small "hellfire" rockets?

 

[lrahm]

Yep, that would be a HUGE step in the wrong direction, since there are already legal means of handling suspects in the United States, unlike overseas in hostile countries like Somalia, Yemen, or Pakistan.

IF that step is taken (arming drones for use in the US), then I'll take back all my comments about Rambone and his tinfoil hat collection. No, seriously.

I wasn't trying to be a pain. I apologize.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

they are just spying to see how much ammo you buy ,and i dont know why after all Obama had all the ammo microchipped so he can sit in the oval office and see every time you pull the trigger ..

Sounds like another good argument for reloading.

 

[rambone]

I suppose the next step would be to arm these drones so they can take out american citizens that are suspected of being terrorists.

Weaponized Police Drones (Houston, Tejas)