Whaddya know? Drones DO bother people after all

[88GT]

Talk of drones patrolling US skies spawns anxiety - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Guess they aren't all sheeple. Now if we could just refrain from insulting them as idiots who pay more attention to American Idol than what's going on in this country, we might actually be able to complete their transformation to the dark side.

 

[dsol]

I wonder if Henry Bowman could knock one out of the sky...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Talk of drones patrolling US skies spawns anxiety - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Guess they aren't all sheeple. Now if we could just refrain from insulting them as idiots who pay more attention to American Idol than what's going on in this country, we might actually be able to complete their transformation to the dark side.

Do not hold your breath, but we can pray.

 

[rambone]

In before Kirk Freeman.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would speculate that a significant part of the shift is in the ease of visualizing the violation of privacy. It is one thing to deal with a completely amorphous concept like invisible .gov bogeymen snooping on electronic communication. Seeing cameras on light poles or drones overhead can be a totally different thing as these require no ability to deal with abstract concepts but rather come with a picture you can Google or else look at in person, where the .gov alphabet soup donut muncher reading your e-mail requires a significant amount of imagination to believe he exists, much less having an idea what he looks like.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I would speculate that a significant part of the shift is in the ease of visualizing the violation of privacy. It is one thing to deal with a completely amorphous concept like invisible .gov bogeymen snooping on electronic communication. Seeing cameras on light poles or drones overhead can be a totally different thing as these require no ability to deal with abstract concepts but rather come with a picture you can Google or else look at in person, where the .gov alphabet soup donut muncher reading your e-mail requires a significant amount of imagination to believe he exists, much less having an idea what he looks like.

You may be right, but I personally have no trouble imagining the more esoteric means of surveillance since I've seen Mission Impossible, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Spy Kids, Die Hard I, II, & III, The X-Files and Person of Interest. When drones begin to be widely used for surveillance of our civilian population, I may be forced to worry about them as well.

 

[indykid]

But these will be used for lawful purposes only, like the war on drugs. It's for the children.....

 

[Whosyer]

I wonder if Henry Bowman could knock one out of the sky...

With a BAR.

 

[eatsnopaste]

if you're not doing anything illegal, what have you got to worry about?

 

[No Lot Lizards]

if you're not doing anything illegal, what have you got to worry about?

I know you are being sarcastic, but I get so sick of hearing this from the nanny state supporters!

 

[churchmouse]

if you're not doing anything illegal, what have you got to worry about?

Not the point being made. It is still a 1984 (Orwell) Big Brother control issue.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For the sake of discussion....(playing devil's advocate here)

Scott said he was prompted to introduce his bill in part by news reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has been using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska. The agency has indeed been searching for illegal dumping of waste into streams but is doing it the old-fashioned way, with piloted planes.

Isn't this similar to LE upgrading to other, automated means for capturing law breakers? The police have been using air planes and squad cars for patrols, looking for us either intentionally or accidently breaking the law for years. Is it the shear number of drones that can be placed in the air that has people alarmed now? If an ISP chopper is flying along and the officer happens to look down and sees you violating a burn ban, is it any different? Really?

And of course, what about officer safety? If we have folks warm and comfy in a building somewhere, off the road and out of the sky, aren't they statisitically safer? Think of the cost savings too.

 

[littletommy]

if you're not doing anything illegal, what have you got to worry about?

Well, for one thing, just about EVERYTHING is illegal these days.

 

[qmikep]

I wonder if Henry Bowman could knock one out of the sky...

With a BAR.

Preferably with a 20mm Solothurn .

 

[rambone]

Isn't this similar to LE upgrading to other, automated means for capturing law breakers? The police have been using air planes and squad cars for patrols, looking for us either intentionally or accidently breaking the law for years. Is it the shear number of drones that can be placed in the air that has people alarmed now? If an ISP chopper is flying along and the officer happens to look down and sees you violating a burn ban, is it any different? Really?

And of course, what about officer safety? If we have folks warm and comfy in a building somewhere, off the road and out of the sky, aren't they statisitically safer? Think of the cost savings too.

The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world. We don't need to find new hi-tech ways to arrest even MORE "law breakers." We need to repeal laws and shrink agencies.

 

[88GT]

I would speculate that a significant part of the shift is in the ease of visualizing the violation of privacy. It is one thing to deal with a completely amorphous concept like invisible .gov bogeymen snooping on electronic communication. Seeing cameras on light poles or drones overhead can be a totally different thing as these require no ability to deal with abstract concepts but rather come with a picture you can Google or else look at in person, where the .gov alphabet soup donut muncher reading your e-mail requires a significant amount of imagination to believe he exists, much less having an idea what he looks like.

I think that's a fair assessment. In part because that many more people are lawbreakers in an ex post facto kind of way. Agree with Ram, we need to repeal laws and scale back/eliminate agencies. If there are no victims, no laws. (Some exceptions to be allowed for the fraud style white collar crimes.)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world. We don't need to find new hi-tech ways to arrest even MORE "law breakers." We need to repeal laws and shrink agencies.

You mean after those legislators and regulators go to all that trouble to create all those laws, you don't want them used? Seems kinda wasteful

 

[KLB]

I think that's a fair assessment. In part because that many more people are lawbreakers in an ex post facto kind of way. Agree with Ram, we need to repeal laws and scale back/eliminate agencies. If there are no victims, no laws. (Some exceptions to be allowed for the fraud style white collar crimes.)

You know very well the answer is to pass MORE laws, create MORE agencies, and spend MORE money! That is the American way.

 

[ocsdor]

Well, for one thing, just about EVERYTHING is illegal these days, unless you are super rich and politically connected.

FIFY

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Look! Up in the sky! Its a bird...its a plane...its..its..

The .gov keeping us safe from...stuff..! Hurray!