Drone and satellite poll

[MadMonkey]

Drones are weapons of war.
No branch of the government should deploy weapons of war on or above US soil.

Could you please explain the bolded statement?

Yeah, I'm all against surveillance and whatnot, but drones could legitimately be used for pretty much anything other than flying people around (and that one's just because I doubt people would trust it).

Yep, I know I wouldn't trust a guy safely on the ground in another state to fly me around. I'd prefer a backup pilot in the aircraft itself... which is a little pointless, because that's essentially what airline pilots already are.

Cargo, on the other hand, I can see it happening as long as it's not over heavily populated areas (as with most other operations). I ran into a couple of unmanned K-Max pilots when I was in Yuma last year and have been hearing about the program quite a bit lately... it's been extremely successful resupplying troops with no danger to the pilots. I doubt we'll see FedEx using a fleet of UAVs any time soon, but I can see unmanned cargo aircraft being a boon to companies that have remote facilities, and in places like Antarctica or the Arctic.

How about skydiving aircraft? The passengers already have parachutes and have to be a little crazy

[VMI77]

2. Do you think law enforcement or government surveillance is going to be the primary use of unmanned vehicles? News flash: It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the thousands of applications available.

Completely irrelevant.It doesn't matter a whit that there might be 100 million drones, and only 1 million might be devoted to surveillance. It doesn't matter a whit whether surveillance is a primary, secondary, or tertiary use. What matters is how many are used for control and surveillance and how they're used.

Also, this majoritarian stuff about getting out and opposing drone use --this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. If individuals are not breaking the law they have a right to be free of government surveillance. It doesn't matter whether a majority is down with around the clock surveillance, the rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to individuals, not groups, and are not subject to the whims of a majority --though yeah, that's not what the collectivists want, and that's not the way it is working out in reality any longer. That said, the government doesn't care what we want....TARP is irrefutable proof of this....Congress was bombarded with opposition, with about 90% of the country opposed, and it didn't make one bit of difference....they still bailed out the bankster criminals and still none of them are in jail. People complain about TSA and its tactics everyday....their response: stonewall and do more of what was complained about.

This is the way it's going to break out: if the people in power get a significant financial and/or political benefit from drone surveillance, or any other use that violates individual rights and changes the nature of the relationship between The State and the individual, there will be drone surveillance, and all us peons will just have to suck it up. We will be inundated by media propaganda that claims only criminals don't want to be constantly survielled and if we've done nothing wrong we've nothing to worry about. You can get no better description of where the path we're on leads than the German film, "The Lives of Others."

[MadMonkey]

Completely irrelevant.It doesn't matter a whit that there might be 100 million drones, and only 1 million might be devoted to surveillance. It doesn't matter a whit whether surveillance is a primary, secondary, or tertiary use. What matters is how many are used for control and surveillance and how they're used.

....that's what I said. Focus on the misuse. Generalizing doesn't help anything.

Also, this majoritarian stuff about getting out and opposing drone use --this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. If individuals are not breaking the law they have a right to be free of government surveillance. It doesn't matter whether a majority is down with around the clock surveillance, the rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to individuals, not groups, and are not subject to the whims of a majority --though yeah, that's not what the collectivists want, and that's not the way it is working out in reality any longer. That said, the government doesn't care what we want....TARP is irrefutable proof of this....Congress was bombarded with opposition, with about 90% of the country opposed, and it didn't make one bit of difference....they still bailed out the bankster criminals and still none of them are in jail. People complain about TSA and its tactics everyday....their response: stonewall and do more of what was complained about.

This is the way it's going to break out: if the people in power get a significant financial and/or political benefit from drone surveillance, or any other use that violates individual rights and changes the nature of the relationship between The State and the individual, there will be drone surveillance, and all us peons will just have to suck it up. We will be inundated by media propaganda that claims only criminals don't want to be constantly survielled and if we've done nothing wrong we've nothing to worry about. You can get no better description of where the path we're on leads than the German film, "The Lives of Others."

I agree... we SHOULDN'T have to remind anyone that we're supposed to be free from surveillance. Unfortunately, "they" have been given an inch, and are prepared to take a mile or so. What should be, and reality are pretty different nowadays, and whining about it on the internet isn't going to change a whole lot. I'm not talking about a majority, I'm talking about letting those in power know that we still do have rights that we prefer not be trampled on.

However, demonizing an entire industry isn't the way to go about it.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... rveillance
Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance
By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/13/12 09:10 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued," Paul said Tuesday. "Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics."

The bill, S. 3287, would require the government to obtain a warrant to use drones with the exception of patroling national borders, when drones are needed to prevent "imminent danger to life" or when there are risks of a terrorist attack.

The bill would also give Americans the ability to sue the government for violating the act. And, it would prohibit evidence collected with warrantless drone surveillance from being used as evidence in court.

By the way, I thought the poll was kind of ridiculous because the last choice seems to reflect the pollster's feelings, and the other possibilities were very dismissively worded. The truth is that, while there may be some hyperventilating on all sides of the argument, this IS a serious issue, and given the dismantling of the republic over the past few years, American citizens are right to fear the implementation of these modern surveillance technologies. It's not the technologies in and of themselves that are bad, but the potential for misuse is HUGE, and government has shown itself all too willing to misuse technology against citizenry in the past. Since it is true that a distressing amount of the time officials, both elected and appointed, seem to show a chronic inability to simply do the right thing, they have earned our mistrust. Making weak-sauce excuses for misusing these technologies perpetuates that mistrust. We deserve better.

I want to trust my elected representation. I think that A) requiring warrants to justify the use, and B) giving citizens the right to sue government when it is misused are steps in the right direction.

[MadMonkey]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... rveillance
Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance
By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/13/12 09:10 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued," Paul said Tuesday. "Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics."

The bill, S. 3287, would require the government to obtain a warrant to use drones with the exception of patroling national borders, when drones are needed to prevent "imminent danger to life" or when there are risks of a terrorist attack.

The bill would also give Americans the ability to sue the government for violating the act. And, it would prohibit evidence collected with warrantless drone surveillance from being used as evidence in court.

Just ran across that last night. I'm 100% behind it! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Slowplay]

Object to UAV misuse. I already said that arming law enforcement (or any domestic-use UAV) is over the line in my opinion. Like firearms, any technology/tool/vehicle/etc has the potential for serious misuse. Instead of banning them all, shouldn't companies and private citizens have the freedom to use them in a positive manner without infringing on the rights of another? Or would you rather they be regulated out of existence because you fear them?

Gee, this argument sounds mighty familiar.

If men were angels, there would be no concern about "misuse." But as TAM has pointed out, a level of mistrust about public misuse has certainly been earned (& there should already be inherent skepticism about those in power - do you not remember Lord Acton from your poli sci classes?).

You again elude to private use and again try to equate serious concerns about drone use with anti-gun positions. I will not explain the difference again and I must say, maybe I'm reading you wrong, but your message comes off to me like an elitist that scoffs at the concerns of the people that don't have a direct financial interest in drone expansion, like you do.

How hard did you fight to ban binoculars from GA aircraft?

Let me ask a couple of questions.

1. Who is oppressing you with a UAV? Law enforcement? Then fight to keep them from having access to them. I don't want them to have UAVs either.

2. Do you think law enforcement or government surveillance is going to be the primary use of unmanned vehicles? News flash: It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the thousands of applications available.

You bring up general aviation. Are you a licensed pilot? Do you know the altitude required to safely operate an aircraft? Binoculars aside , aircraft flown in general aviation are hardly inconspicuous - not a valid comparison to drone use.

Regarding your comment about law enforcement or government surveillance being a "tiny, tiny percentage of thousands of applications available, are you not aware of the current federal law in place regarding unmanned aerial systems?

Civil unmanned aerial system integration (rules, restrictions & certificates of authorization) does not have to be completed for over three years. However, public unmanned aerial system integration has been fast-tracked. Here is current federal law (excerpt):

(c) Agreements With Government Agencies-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with appropriate government agencies to simplify the process for issuing certificates of waiver or authorization with respect to applications seeking authorization to operate public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system.

(2) CONTENTS- The agreements shall--

(A) with respect to an application described in paragraph (1)--
(i) provide for an expedited review of the application;
(ii) require a decision by the Administrator on approval or disapproval within 60 business days of the date of submission of the application; and
(iii) allow for an expedited appeal if the application is disapproved;

(B) allow for a one-time approval of similar operations carried out during a fixed period of time; and

(C) allow a government public safety agency to operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated--
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location with aviation activities.

[Slowplay]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... rveillance
Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance
By Pete Kasperowicz - 06/13/12 09:10 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued," Paul said Tuesday. "Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics."

The bill, S. 3287, would require the government to obtain a warrant to use drones with the exception of patroling national borders, when drones are needed to prevent "imminent danger to life" or when there are risks of a terrorist attack.

The bill would also give Americans the ability to sue the government for violating the act. And, it would prohibit evidence collected with warrantless drone surveillance from being used as evidence in court.

Just ran across that last night. I'm 100% behind it! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Well, we would appear to agree here, but don't we really know the chances of this bill going anywhere are pretty slim? Rand Paul was one of only 20 U.S. Senators that voted against the FAA Modernization Act that implemented the expedited integration of governmental agency drone use (signed into law by Obama in February, IIRC).

Many Senators will claim agreement with Rand Paul's bill, but will be lobbied by those w/ financial stakes in drones - doubtful that Reid will let it see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong.

ETA: Interesting OT, but if you type f a s t - t r a c k i n g w/out spaces, you get fast-tracking...didn't know that.

[couzin]

...By the way, I thought the poll was kind of ridiculous because the last choice seems to reflect the pollster's feelings, and the other possibilities were very dismissively worded.

Seriously?!! Dude - it was posted "tongue in cheek"! As far as 'the pollster's feelings' - I changed (edited) the poll to add WildBill's comment right at the beginning of the thread:

None of the above:

X Tell the talking head to get a job.

because I thought added humour. And "dismissively worded" - what.. do you really think they can take a picture of a fly? What a buzz kill...(get it? )

I never thought anyone would get that far out in the weeds over this small attempt at levity over the issue. I believe there is a serious thread running somewhere else on the forum. I realize a lot of folks are getting all wrapped around the axle over the drones and satellites - and the politician have seized on that for their political gain. But I guess I am in the minority - I have nothing to hide, the feds can snoop around in my computer and cell phone all they want, take photos of me cutting the grass or taking a shower (shudder - ewww!), even bug my house - as long as I am being kept from being a bullseye for some jihadist or other nutjob to the best of their abilities - I will try my best to pick up where they cannot do it. I am (was) familiar with most of the toys being used by the feds - I also know their capabilities and applications. We, as citizens of the greatest nation, should not fear what the government and military are trying to do (keeping, of course, a healthy scepticism (a position of ambiguity or doubt)), but support the effort and decry those that attempt to usurp it for personal or professional gain.

[speedsix]

...if the system of checks and balances between the three branches was working as the founders intended...
...and the people voted with all their heart at every opportunity...
...and the people expressed a roar of outrage in phone calls, letters, emails when government got out of bounds, instead of a muttered grumble and a change of channels on the remote...

...we'd have a lot less reason to be wary of what our government was doing to/for us...


...the system would work...if we'd work it...

[VMI77]

...By the way, I thought the poll was kind of ridiculous because the last choice seems to reflect the pollster's feelings, and the other possibilities were very dismissively worded.

Seriously?!! Dude - it was posted "tongue in cheek"! As far as 'the pollster's feelings' - I changed (edited) the poll to add WildBill's comment right at the beginning of the thread:

None of the above:

X Tell the talking head to get a job.

because I thought added humour. And "dismissively worded" - what.. do you really think they can take a picture of a fly? What a buzz kill...(get it? )

I never thought anyone would get that far out in the weeds over this small attempt at levity over the issue. I believe there is a serious thread running somewhere else on the forum. I realize a lot of folks are getting all wrapped around the axle over the drones and satellites - and the politician have seized on that for their political gain. But I guess I am in the minority - I have nothing to hide, the feds can snoop around in my computer and cell phone all they want, take photos of me cutting the grass or taking a shower (shudder - ewww!), even bug my house - as long as I am being kept from being a bullseye for some jihadist or other nutjob to the best of their abilities - I will try my best to pick up where they cannot do it. I am (was) familiar with most of the toys being used by the feds - I also know their capabilities and applications. We, as citizens of the greatest nation, should not fear what the government and military are trying to do (keeping, of course, a healthy scepticism (a position of ambiguity or doubt)), but support the effort and decry those that attempt to usurp it for personal or professional gain.

Yeah, I read it the way TAM did too, as dismissive, and the attitude expressed above reinforces my interpretation. If you really believe you have "nothing to hide" I suggest what you really have is very little understanding of how what you believe is innocent and innocuous information will be used against you (here I suggest again that you watch the German film, "The Lives of Others" --it does a pretty good job of showing how such information is really used). The film I refer to addresses deliberate misuse, but even if we had a government we could trust, and its intentions were pure and good, the government knowing everything about you will ultimately lead to dire consequences....just wait until we get some more Nanny laws telling you what you can put in your trash and what you can eat, and the government is fining you because you drank to much soda, or ate too much pizza, or meat, or ice cream, or consumed more than your government allowance of beer.

I don't know how old you are, but the country we're living in now is not the country I grew up in...not even close. Your belief that the motive of the government we now have is to keep you safe, and that the point of surveilling you has anything to do with "terrorism" or crime, simply defies logic. The government has a limited amount of resources, so if they're surveilling YOU, then they're not looking for terrorists, and their motive is not what you seem to believe it is.

[VMI77]

...the system would work...if we'd work it...

I have to disagree....I think we're beyond that now....and the main reason is that the government has grown a huge entitlement class....and I'm not just talking about people on welfare --I'm talking about a large percentage of the population, close to a majority-- that primarily derive their livelihoods from taxpayer provided resources --from useless bureaucrats to government contractors, to corporate handouts, and most of all a banking industry that literally has the power to enrich itself by creating money out of thin air. Simply, we're outgunned when it comes to the power of money, and on the verge of being perpetually outvoted.

[chasfm11]

...By the way, I thought the poll was kind of ridiculous because the last choice seems to reflect the pollster's feelings, and the other possibilities were very dismissively worded.

Seriously?!! Dude - it was posted "tongue in cheek"! As far as 'the pollster's feelings' - I changed (edited) the poll to add WildBill's comment right at the beginning of the thread:

None of the above:

X Tell the talking head to get a job.

because I thought added humour. And "dismissively worded" - what.. do you really think they can take a picture of a fly? What a buzz kill...(get it? )

I never thought anyone would get that far out in the weeds over this small attempt at levity over the issue. I believe there is a serious thread running somewhere else on the forum. I realize a lot of folks are getting all wrapped around the axle over the drones and satellites - and the politician have seized on that for their political gain. But I guess I am in the minority - I have nothing to hide, the feds can snoop around in my computer and cell phone all they want, take photos of me cutting the grass or taking a shower (shudder - ewww!), even bug my house - as long as I am being kept from being a bullseye for some jihadist or other nutjob to the best of their abilities - I will try my best to pick up where they cannot do it. I am (was) familiar with most of the toys being used by the feds - I also know their capabilities and applications. We, as citizens of the greatest nation, should not fear what the government and military are trying to do (keeping, of course, a healthy scepticism (a position of ambiguity or doubt)), but support the effort and decry those that attempt to usurp it for personal or professional gain.

I would submit at just about ALL that the Federal government is doing is for the personal and professional gain of the Elites who are driving it - from both political parties. You may wish to look the other way on the rampant corruption - I do not. DHS is security theater at its finest. While I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most of the policies of TSA and others are engineered to further subjugate the public, not protect it. And it is not sceptisim on my part - it is downright fear.

I personally see no humor in any of this. I spent enough time in airplanes to have earned myself Platinium status on American and while I was flying just about every other airline that crosses the Atlantic. I will not get on another airplane because I will not submit to the degradation that is taking place. Having adult diapers removed from crippled octogenarians and patting down children under 6 in the name of security is heinous.

Unless and until the balance of power is restored to our Federal government as described in the Constitution, anyone who doesn't fear what is going on is deluding themselves.

[VMI77]

...By the way, I thought the poll was kind of ridiculous because the last choice seems to reflect the pollster's feelings, and the other possibilities were very dismissively worded.

Seriously?!! Dude - it was posted "tongue in cheek"! As far as 'the pollster's feelings' - I changed (edited) the poll to add WildBill's comment right at the beginning of the thread:

None of the above:

X Tell the talking head to get a job.

because I thought added humour. And "dismissively worded" - what.. do you really think they can take a picture of a fly? What a buzz kill...(get it? )

I never thought anyone would get that far out in the weeds over this small attempt at levity over the issue. I believe there is a serious thread running somewhere else on the forum. I realize a lot of folks are getting all wrapped around the axle over the drones and satellites - and the politician have seized on that for their political gain. But I guess I am in the minority - I have nothing to hide, the feds can snoop around in my computer and cell phone all they want, take photos of me cutting the grass or taking a shower (shudder - ewww!), even bug my house - as long as I am being kept from being a bullseye for some jihadist or other nutjob to the best of their abilities - I will try my best to pick up where they cannot do it. I am (was) familiar with most of the toys being used by the feds - I also know their capabilities and applications. We, as citizens of the greatest nation, should not fear what the government and military are trying to do (keeping, of course, a healthy scepticism (a position of ambiguity or doubt)), but support the effort and decry those that attempt to usurp it for personal or professional gain.

I would submit at just about ALL that the Federal government is doing is for the personal and professional gain of the Elites who are driving it - from both political parties. You may wish to look the other way on the rampant corruption - I do not. DHS is security theater at its finest. While I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, I believe that most of the policies of TSA and others are engineered to further subjugate the public, not protect it. And it is not sceptisim on my part - it is downright fear.

I personally see no humor in any of this. I spent enough time in airplanes to have earned myself Platinium status on American and while I was flying just about every other airline that crosses the Atlantic. I will not get on another airplane because I will not submit to the degradation that is taking place. Having adult diapers removed from crippled octogenarians and patting down children under 6 in the name of security is heinous.

Unless and until the balance of power is restored to our Federal government as described in the Constitution, anyone who doesn't fear what is going on is deluding themselves.

Exactly: we're just livestock to be herded, corralled, ridden, hitched to the plow, sheared, milked, and harvested.

[speedsix]

...the system would work...if we'd work it...

I have to disagree....I think we're beyond that now....and the main reason is that the government has grown a huge entitlement class....and I'm not just talking about people on welfare --I'm talking about a large percentage of the population, close to a majority-- that primarily derive their livelihoods from taxpayer provided resources --from useless bureaucrats to government contractors, to corporate handouts, and most of all a banking industry that literally has the power to enrich itself by creating money out of thin air. Simply, we're outgunned when it comes to the power of money, and on the verge of being perpetually outvoted.

...I sincerely hope you're wrong, and that we still can change things at the voting booth...if not...if we're that far gone...the other options are to practice our baa-ing, (and I find the other option revolting)...

[VMI77]

...the system would work...if we'd work it...

I have to disagree....I think we're beyond that now....and the main reason is that the government has grown a huge entitlement class....and I'm not just talking about people on welfare --I'm talking about a large percentage of the population, close to a majority-- that primarily derive their livelihoods from taxpayer provided resources --from useless bureaucrats to government contractors, to corporate handouts, and most of all a banking industry that literally has the power to enrich itself by creating money out of thin air. Simply, we're outgunned when it comes to the power of money, and on the verge of being perpetually outvoted.

...I sincerely hope you're wrong, and that we still can change things at the voting booth...if not...if we're that far gone...the other options are to practice our baa-ing, (and I find the other option revolting)...

I hope so too.....

http://gunslingersjournal.blogspot.com/ ... ilbag.html

See the link for more detailed analysis, but here are a couple of excerpts:

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."