arma virumque cano (et alia)
There is the potential for some definite civil rights issues with this technology. Even without using what they call see through imaging, how does probable cause get reined in when sophisticated optics coupled with a drone's unique vantage point allow views through windows that would normally be considered private. And if people take what could be considered a reasonable step, of some sort of coating on the glass to prevent surveillance, does that become obstruction of justice? I can also hardly wait for Laci's gushing article celebrating the deployment of drones armed with missiles in the US further proving the futility of armed rebellion with mere rifles. It is most notable that whenever they acquire a new technology, government seems very willing to use it to intrude into citizens' lives. No one there seems to possess that little voice in their head that says, "maybe we shouldn't do that".http://www.popscreen.com/v/6z2iP/Animal-House-_-Angel-Vs-Devil
I'm surprised you're not more accepting of this technology, being a military man yourself. You're more concerned with the invasion of privacy aspect than the saving of pilot lives? Really?
"You're more concerned with the invasion of privacy aspect than the saving of pilot lives? Really?" Mike, the posting seems to delve more into the emerging uses of drones in the US interacting with citizens. I doubt there is much of a tradeoff between invasion of privacy and the lives of pilots. Unless police helicopters are getting more shot up than anyone else knows. In combat operations, there is a use for them and decisions on their use fall to the national command authority. In direct combat they have served in a similar role as close air support. And then there are the missile attacks made in other countries that we are not in direct conflict with, mainly Pakistan. That is something run at I'm presuming at the highest level. And hopefully with an eye towards international law. This posting speaks of technology allowing drone operators being able to see through wall with some technology. This opens up quite a potential can of worms in the area of 4th amendment issues.
Have it your way, but it seems to me even the civilian and national uses that are legitimate far outweigh the paranoid and anti-government complaints that you seem to be aligning yourself with.
And the Statist rejoice thinking we will all be safer when we are monitored all the time.
This is why we need oversight, regulations, and laws governing the use of surveillance technology and weapons, which of course, the Republicans vote against all the time.
"When it was first reported in 2006 that the Bush administration was wiretapping e-mails and phone calls worldwide in the hunt for terror suspects, then-Senator Barack Obama said it was a — quote — “slippery slope.”House Speaker Republican John Boehner said it’s now up to President Obama to explain how critical the program is."http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2013/06/government-surveillance-of-citizens-raises-civil-liberty-concerns/"Despite last-minute criticism from privacy advocates, a bipartisan coalition in the House on Thursday easily approved a National Security Agency reform bill that aims to curb the government’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone call records..The House voted 303-121 to send the proposed USAFreedom Act to the Senate, where top Democrats have vowed to reinstate privacy protections that critics said were weakened after negotiations between the White House and leaders on Capitol Hill.""Privacy advocates withdrew their support for the bill after changes were made in the final days before the vote. Chief among their objections was the White House insistence on broadening the definition of the types of searches that can be conducted."http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nsa-house-spying-20140522-story.html Actually this bill was introduced by a Republican and apparently easily passed in the House which holds a Republican majority. And privacy advocates are laying the blame for weakening the bill an the feet of the White House which is controlled by a Democrat. You're right, its quite obvious that Republicans are voting against this all the time....Not!
I guess that excuses that the Republicans started the program in the first place. Their program was so flawed it started the controversy. The Republican Patriot Act has been shown to be full of violations of individual rights.
Coincidentally enough the person who introduced the legislation I mentioned above also introduced the Patriot Act legislation. And I'm sorry, the Democrats don't get to take any moral high ground on this issue. While it was introduced and signed by the Republicans, it passed with such a majority that many Democrats get both credit and blame. To the tune of 357 to 66 in the house and 98 to 1 in the Senate. Plus the president could always utilize his executive powers to "just say no" we aren't going to do that. And to top it off, President Obama has signed not one, but two extensions to the Patriot Act.You're more concerned with the invasion of privacy aspect than the saving of pilot lives? Really?
It was Bush who introduced the use of drones in that war zone first. As I have said before, if you don't care about the larger loss of life among our soldiers by all means force the discontinuation of drones. The only reason I support drones, is to save American soldiers lives. These laws refelect Republican ideology. They are the ones who could care less about individual freedoms. The Democrats also gave Bush the right to invade Iraq. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you don't think history has proven them all wrong, then you aren't to smart.
"The only reason I support drones, is to save American soldiers lives." Being a soldier I happen to support that also Anon. However, this post speaks mostly to the increasing use of drones in the United States. And in this country, the use of drones isn't necessary to save the lives of soldiers. Here, the issue is rights to privacy and to be free from unreasonable intrusions. There seems somewhere to have been a sea change in attitude in the government. Many seem to have adopted the attitude of doing something is ok as long as we don't get caught, or if no one complains, its ok, at least until the courts say so. No one at these meetings, be they Democrat or Republican, is raising their hands and saying this stuff isn't right. Eventually the courts will decide this issue of unreasonable searches using data acquired using this gee wiz technology.
There is nothing new about the government spying on Americans and this is just the latest technology to come along. Each technology has ended up before the court, just as photography, audio tapes, video, public cameras, etc.
This post is about the history of drones and mostly about military use of drones. Reread the post.
This post is about the history of drones and mostly about military use of drones." The history of drones does deal mainly with its military applications. The graphic then progresses into its current uses which deals exclusively with civilian applications. It then show how they might be used in the future and then it touches on concerns in regards to misuse of drones, which is what I spoke to. Perhaps you should take your own advice,"Reread the post."
It's titled "how they might be used" as compared to how they have been used. Reread the post.
Yep, and if you look way up at the top at my first comment I speak to the potential for misuse in the area of privacy.
Yep, well where is your proof of privacy misuse? The post said "might" and you said "potential." Are you going to keep this stupid word game going even though you already lost?