Spy drones in demand by U.S. police departments, but approval pending

[CptSternn]

Coming soon to a police department near you in America...


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...ness/drone.php

MIAMI: The Miami police could soon use cutting-edge flying drones to help fight crime.

A small pilotless vehicle manufactured by Honeywell International, capable of hovering and "staring" using electro-optic or infrared sensors, is expected to be introduced soon in the skies over the Florida Everglades.

If use of the drone wins U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approval after tests, the Miami-Dade Police Department will start flying the 14 pound, or 6.35 kilogram, drone over urban areas with an eye toward full-fledged employment in crime fighting.

"Our intentions are to use it only in tactical situations as an extra set of eyes," said Detective Juan Villalba, a police department spokesman.

"We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission," he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with "barricaded subjects."

And the Miami-Dade police are not alone. Taking their lead from the U.S. military, which has used drones in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, law enforcement agencies across the United States have voiced a growing interest in using drones for domestic crime-fighting missions.

Known in the aerospace industry as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, drones have been under development for decades in the United States.

The CIA acknowledges that it developed a dragonfly-sized UAV known as the "Insectohopter" for laser-guided spy operations as long ago as the 1970s. And other advanced work on robotic flyers has clearly been under way for quite some time.

"The FBI is experimenting with a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles," said Marcus Thomas, an assistant director of the bureau's Operational Technology Division.

"At this point they have been used mainly for search and rescue missions," he added. "It certainly is an up-and-coming technology and the FBI is researching additional uses for UAVs."

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well.

This month, Juan Munoz-Torres, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the agency would also begin test flights of a modified version of its large Predator B drones, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the Gulf of Mexico.

Citing numerous safety concerns, the Federal Aviation Administration - the government agency responsible for regulating civil aviation - has been slow in developing procedures for the use of drones by police departments.

"You don't want one of these coming down on grandma's windshield when she's on her way to the grocery store," said Doug Davis, the agency's program manager for unmanned aerial systems.

He acknowledged strong interest from law enforcement agencies in getting drones up and running, however, and said the smaller aircraft were particularly likely to have a "huge economic impact" over the next 10 years.

Getting clearance for the police and other civilian agencies to fly cannot come soon enough for Billy Robinson, chief executive of Cyber Defense Systems, a small start-up company in St. Petersburg, Florida. His company makes an eight-pound kite-sized drone that was flown for a time by the police in Palm Bay, Florida, and in other towns, before the Federal Aviation Administration stepped in.

"We've had interest from dozens of law enforcement agencies," Robinson said. "They are preventing a bunch of small companies such as ours from becoming profitable," he said, referring to the agency.

Some privacy advocates, however, say rules and ordinances need to be drafted to protect civil liberties during surveillance operations.

"There's been controversies all around about putting up surveillance cameras in public areas," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.

"Technological developments can be used by law enforcement in a way that enhances public safety," he said. "But every enhanced technology also contains a threat of further erosion of privacy."


Nothing like having aerial cameras flying overhead monitoring your every move to let you know how 'free' you are...

[Raptor]

Theres already CCTV everywhere, I don't think this would bother me anymore than that does.

[Raptor]

I can't edit now, but actually I've changed my mind. A drone could remove some of the privacy you have in your own home, unlike CCTV. If they were attached to SWAT teams that might be more understandable. Constant flights would be worrying. The military finds them very useful, not like Iraqis get a choice.

Reminds me of the hover drones on Dark Angel.

[IsolatedReptile]

Rather than the Hover Drones from Dark Angel all I can think of are those flying war machines from Terminator.

On a more serious note, I see a problem with using these in residential or populated areas, however, I see little problem with using them around the borders so long as they use them solely for what their intended.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Unless they decide to park one of these things outside each and every window, I see nothing wrong with them.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Oh, and I love how once again Sternn tries to make America look bad by pointing his finger at something that some American police want, while ignoring the fact that his next door neighbor, aka England, already has it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/6676809.stm

If he opposes the use of police drones, you'd think he'd complain about the people who have them in use first, rather than the people who merely want to use them. But nooo... America must be made to look bad at all costs. <_<

[CptSternn]

Heh - because I didn't list england you think I am pro-england? I have been a member of Sinn Fein for over 20 years. I have been arrested and imprisoned by england for my views towards their government.

If you think I'm an england fan, your must have missed many of my other threads.

That being said, there are a few reasons I posted this and didn't post anything on england.

First, england (well the whole UK) has been doing this since the 80's. CCTV, spy drones, and hidden cameras are a daily way of life in the UK and have been for decades. It's not news.

Second, and most importantly, england doesn't have a constitution. They don't have the right to things like free speech. In fact, you can be sued by someone even if you speak the truth, if it damages their character. Thats just one of many differences that I could list, but the point I'm trying to make is in england as well as the UK, they have no laws to protect their privacy. They have no constitution to protect their rights. The people who live there have less 'freedoms' than Americans.

America claims to have various protections in place, and proudly tell the world that they have a Constitution which protects those rights. Then you see the government almost weekly coming out with new laws and techniques which are directly in conflict with the Constitution.

This is just another example of this.

What I also find amusing is your statement:

Oh, and I love how once again Sternn tries to make America look bad by pointing his finger at something that some American police want

You admit in that statement, it makes America look bad, however, in the same breath accuse me of being the one who is somehow responsible.

Don't shoot the messenger. I merely point out glaring contradictions in governmental policy, I don't make the policies.

You should be bothered mate, but not at me...

[Raptor]

The English one says it is fitted with CCTV, the larger Predator UAV used by the US military is more advanced. I think its fitted with normal optical cameras for still photos, video recordings, and also infrared cameras and radar equipment.
Still though, I don't think radar would be that useful in a civilian situation and IR is already fitted to police helicopters. And thats only if the smaller UAV has as much equipment as the larger one. So not that much change really.

Originally Posted by IsolatedReptile

Rather than the Hover Drones from Dark Angel all I can think of are those flying war machines from Terminator.

But Jessica Alba

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Heh - because I didn't list england you think I am pro-england? I have been a member of Sinn Fein for over 20 years. I have been arrested and imprisoned by england for my views towards their government.

Funny how whenever someone mentions something you disagree with, you were miraculously arrested by said something. As often as you claim you've been arrested, it's a miracle that you're able to post here.

If you think I'm an england fan, your must have missed many of my other threads.

First of all, at least 90% of your other threads have to do with you crummy anti-Americanism, not England. Secondly, turning a blind eye to England's bullshit in order to bash America does not equal "england fan." God gave you a brain, fucking use it. (And here I invoke the name of God because it's obvious that you didn't inherit any brains from your parents.)

That being said, there are a few reasons I posted this and didn't post anything on england.

Other than that you're full of shit?

First, england (well the whole UK) has been doing this since the 80's. CCTV, spy drones, and hidden cameras are a daily way of life in the UK and have been for decades. It's not news.

Yes and no. Spy drones are new. The cameras are not. Still, if you're opposed to something, it makes no sense to ignore it on one front while pointing it out on another. That makes you a hypocrite. No surprise there, however.

Second, and most importantly, england doesn't have a constitution. They don't have the right to things like free speech. In fact, you can be sued by someone even if you speak the truth, if it damages their character.

The same is true in America. For someone who lived in America until several years ago, it's amazing that you don't know this.

Thats just one of many differences that I could list,

Except it's not.

but the point I'm trying to make is in england as well as the UK, they have no laws to protect their privacy. They have no constitution to protect their rights. The people who live there have less 'freedoms' than Americans.

Hardly.

America claims to have various protections in place, and proudly tell the world that they have a Constitution which protects those rights. Then you see the government almost weekly coming out with new laws and techniques which are directly in conflict with the Constitution.

So, you're suggesting that it's a violation of the rights of the people taking hostages to have these drones spy on them. That is, after all, the intended purpose for them. Are you saying that you support violent crime?

This is just another example of this.

Your "example" is worthless.

What I also find amusing is your statement:

You admit in that statement, it makes America look bad, however, in the same breath accuse me of being the one who is somehow responsible.

And since when does you trying to make America look bad equal America looking bad? Oh, right... never. Try again.

Don't shoot the messenger. I merely point out glaring contradictions in governmental policy, I don't make the policies.

If you want to point out contradiction, make sure they exist before you shoot your mouth off.

You should be bothered mate, but not at me...

On the contrary, you are the only thing to be bothered by. you go out of your way to make accusations against America, but the vast majority of them are unfounded. They equal little more than those propaganda posters from fascist Italy during WWII that depicted black American soldiers pillaging churches; scary, but with not an ounce of truth behind them. What really bothers me is that some people are actually drawn in by your sugar-coated lies.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The English one says it is fitted with CCTV, the larger Predator UAV used by the US military is more advanced. I think its fitted with normal optical cameras for still photos, video recordings, and also infrared cameras and radar equipment.
Still though, I don't think radar would be that useful in a civilian situation and IR is already fitted to police helicopters. And thats only if the smaller UAV has as much equipment as the larger one. So not that much change really.

CCTV is not less advanced. It just a different broadcast format.

[Raptor]

I said the Predator was more advanced than the English police drone, at least in the sense than it has more sensors.

Not that it makes any difference, my point was that the technologies in place on either drone are larger already available to police, just not mounted on UAVs.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Funny how whenever someone mentions something you disagree with, you were miraculously arrested by said something. As often as you claim you've been arrested, it's a miracle that you're able to post here.

I've been in prisons in three different countries. You should check out my rendition thread in politics.

First of all, at least 90% of your other threads have to do with you crummy anti-Americanism, not England. Secondly, turning a blind eye to England's bullshit in order to bash America does not equal "england fan." God gave you a brain, fucking use it. (And here I invoke the name of God because it's obvious that you didn't inherit any brains from your parents.)

You, much like the other ignorant misled right-wingers here for some reason equate critisim as 'anti-American'. Much like rumsfeld said during the start of the was 'speaking out against American policies is equal to terrorism'. Thats the tripe your trying to spew.

If you happy living in a totalitarian state that has CCTV everywhere and spy drones policing your neighborhood beside the para-military police force driving through in armoured trucks, then hey your in luck - and I can see why you don't like me saying bad things against such tactics here. I have lived in such before, I know that a truly free and democratic society doesn't have things like CCTV, armoured vehicles, and men with machine guns walking the streets.

Other than that you're full of shit?

Thats mature. Whats next? Are you going to respond 'I know you are but what am I'?

Yes and no. Spy drones are new. The cameras are not. Still, if you're opposed to something, it makes no sense to ignore it on one front while pointing it out on another. That makes you a hypocrite. No surprise there, however.

I have already addressed the england issue. If you want to know how I feel about spy cameras, maybe you should see me and my mates in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1XInyp_w2c

Also, some more vids for you - I'm in a few there, so see if ye can pick me out...

http://www.youtube.com/user/CptSternn

The same is true in America. For someone who lived in America until several years ago, it's amazing that you don't know this.

Really? Have you forgotten about the First Amendment? You do have the right to free press in America. For example, Clinton could have sued papers for printing he was having relations with Lewinsky had he lived in the UK, and the papers would have been forced to stop printing the story AND pay damages - EVEN when the story turned out to be true. The same goes for anyone in the UK - you can't print defamatory news stories even if they are true. Your telling me now that America is the same? If you truly believe that then you are very misguided.

So, you're suggesting that it's a violation of the rights of the people taking hostages to have these drones spy on them. That is, after all, the intended purpose for them. Are you saying that you support violent crime?

You seriously think the cops will just use the spy drones in SWAT situations? Why do they need a predator drone - a long range drone that takes pictures from an altitude higher than many small engine planes for a SWAT situation? What SWAT situation calls for long range surveillance?

If you really believe that they are going to use it for that purpose, you are quite ignorant. The patriot act was supposed to 'stop terrorists'. Before rumsfeld left office he was in front of congress defending the act. However, he stated that of the 1,200+ times the patriot act was used in a criminal investigation, only 14 cases involved terrorism. That means than in over a thousand other cases AMERICANS who were not terrorists were arrested under an anti-terrorist act and the laws which strip them of their basic civil liberties was used to prosecute everyday crime - ranging from book making to car stereo thieves.

And since when does you trying to make America look bad equal America looking bad?...you go out of your way to make accusations against America, but the vast majority of them are unfounded.

I don't try to make anyone look anything. I merely post news articles here. I don't write the articles, I don't modify the articles. However you decide to take them is your own perspective.

The fact you are bothered by mainstream news to the point you have decided to shoot the messenger should tell you something. If your bothered, chances are its not really at me.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I've been in prisons in three different countries. You should check out my rendition thread in politics.

And if half the shit you said was true, you would've been in those prisons for a very long time.

You, much like the other ignorant misled right-wingers here for some reason equate critisim as 'anti-American'.

First of all, I'd have to be a right-winger to be compared to other right-wingers. Secondly, there's a difference between critiquing something and posting every negative thing you can find followed by snarky comments. You trying to hide behind the banner of criticism is just plain dishonest, and you know it.

Much like rumsfeld said during the start of the was 'speaking out against American policies is equal to terrorism'. Thats the tripe your trying to spew.

Um, sure, because a few local police departments having a couple drones is in any way comparable to a stupid nation-wide policy which, in comparison, had unlimited resources.

If you happy living in a totalitarian state that has CCTV everywhere and spy drones policing your neighborhood beside the para-military police force driving through in armoured trucks, then hey your in luck - and I can see why you don't like me saying bad things against such tactics here.

First of all, no one's suggesting CCTV, men with machine guns, or armored vehicles. (Though the armored vehicles would probably be a good idea in heavily gang-infested areas.) So there you are again, misrepresenting things.

I have lived in such before, I know that a truly free and democratic society doesn't have things like CCTV, armoured vehicles, and men with machine guns walking the streets.

They do if they voted for it. But then again, we're talking about the United States, not a true democracy. Perhaps you should brush up on you political history, but the U.S. is a representative democracy, which means that when it comes to matter of voting, the representatives can over-ride the wishes of the populace if they so choose to, for no reason other than they want to. Seriously, do you really think the people wanted Bush as president?

Thats mature. Whats next? Are you going to respond 'I know you are but what am I'?

Would it have been more mature if I had said "fecal matter" rather than "shit?" And funny how this is like the millionth time I've said that, and only now do you question my maturity.

I have already addressed the england issue. If you want to know how I feel about spy cameras, maybe you should see me and my mates in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1XInyp_w2c

Also, some more vids for you - I'm in a few there, so see if ye can pick me out...

http://www.youtube.com/user/CptSternn

*facepalm*

I'm not saying that you like them. I'm saying that you're a hypocrite for bashing America for wanting drones while not even mentioning other countries that already have them. (Doing so at other sites doesn't count, because I don't follow you around the web. Until now, I didn't even know you had a YouTube account.)

Really? Have you forgotten about the First Amendment? You do have the right to free press in America. For example, Clinton could have sued papers for printing he was having relations with Lewinsky had he lived in the UK, and the papers would have been forced to stop printing the story AND pay damages - EVEN when the story turned out to be true.

Do you honestly believe that things like that don't happen in the U.S.?

The same goes for anyone in the UK - you can't print defamatory news stories even if they are true. Your telling me now that America is the same? If you truly believe that then you are very misguided.

Considering that similar things have happened in the U.S., if you don't believe it then you're just naive.

You seriously think the cops will just use the spy drones in SWAT situations? Why do they need a predator drone - a long range drone that takes pictures from an altitude higher than many small engine planes for a SWAT situation? What SWAT situation calls for long range surveillance?

First of all, they need to be high up so they can't be spotted. If someone holding hostages realizes that he's being spying on, do you think he's going to be like "oh, that's okay," or is he going to blow the head off a hostage? Secondly, not all hostage situations occur in buildings. They happen in vehicles, too. So the drone will need to follow them around for god knows how long. Thirdly, they could easily replace those helicopters that follow fleeing vehicles in high-speed chases. They can do the same job, and they'd save the PD a decent wad of cash on fuel.

If you really believe that they are going to use it for that purpose, you are quite ignorant.

And if you automatically assume that they will use it for other stuff beyond what they say, you're just as ignorant.

The patriot act was supposed to 'stop terrorists'. Before rumsfeld left office he was in front of congress defending the act. However, he stated that of the 1,200+ times the patriot act was used in a criminal investigation, only 14 cases involved terrorism. That means than in over a thousand other cases AMERICANS who were not terrorists were arrested under an anti-terrorist act and the laws which strip them of their basic civil liberties was used to prosecute everyday crime - ranging from book making to car stereo thieves.

Again, a few local police departments having a couple drones is not in any way comparable to a stupid nation-wide policy which, in comparison, had unlimited resources.

I don't try to make anyone look anything. I merely post news articles here.

Followed by your skewed interpretation of them.

I don't write the articles, I don't modify the articles. However you decide to take them is your own perspective.

Projecting never got you anywhere.

The fact you are bothered by mainstream news to the point you have decided to shoot the messenger should tell you something. If your bothered, chances are its not really at me.

No, no, it's definitely at you. And I already explained why.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Why do they need a predator drone - a long range drone that takes pictures from an altitude higher than many small engine planes for a SWAT situation? What SWAT situation calls for long range surveillance?

Beneath the Shadows could be right here. Hostage situations already use methods of intelligence gathering where the people involved don't realise it's happening; sniper teams, IR fitted helicopters. A predator would be another advantage for them.

If the government wanted to spy on people from the air... wouldn't they just use these secretly?

Also the two of you spend as much effort getting at each other as arguing about the thread. You can disagree with someone and argue against them and still be polite.

[IsolatedReptile]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Beneath the Shadows could be right here. Hostage situations already use methods of intelligence gathering where the people involved don't realise it's happening; sniper teams, IR fitted helicopters. A predator would be another advantage for them.

If the government wanted to spy on people from the air... wouldn't they just use these secretly?

Also the two of you spend as much effort getting at each other as arguing about the thread. You can disagree with someone and argue against them and still be polite.

I don't think using them secretly would be too wise. If someone found out, then the government would have to back peddle. Now, they can say, "We told you so. You weren't complaining when we started."

[Raptor]

If someone noticed them spying, the government would have explaining to do either way. But I guess if you said they were being used for real police purposes, noone would be able to tell where the drone was looking.

[CptSternn]

The real question is - what sort of society suggest this as a solution?

BTS - your response makes me smile. You go out of your way to defend draconian measures your government is implementing to use against its own people.

For someone who claims to be a fan of freedom and democracy, it seems like you spend a lot of time defending measures, policies, and tactics that are the exact opposite of what you claim to support.

Its ironic actually. Before bush, there was none of this stuff. No spy planes, no CCTV, no biometric data on ID cards, no wiretaps and the government reading your mail.

Now, its all in place, and people hate bush, but yet for some reason defend all the crazy stuff he has done. They claim to be supporting democracy and 'freedom', yet people like yourself are trying to justify why your government needs to watch you 24/7, tap your phone, read your mail, put armed gards throughout your society, and other really crazy measures that until now were only seen in the old Soviet Union, China, and other totalitarian government structures.

I find it ironic so many Americans have fallen for the bait-and-switch here. Your not supporting your country, democracy, or freedom if you support those sorts of methods in your society.

[knightmare]

If by freedom, you mean the possibility to do criminal acts, you are right about the limits set by surveillance. Also, I think there's an exaggeration of the government's role as a big brother. Every society has armed guards and are watched by the government to some degree. I think it is wrong if the government was peeking into your private residence, unless you're in suspicion of being either a criminal or terrorist (which if you are either, I think that you should lose what little right to privacy citizens have). Also, the police need a warrant or at least reasonable suspicion to tap phones (in a limited way) )But if you're in a public space like a store or park, you cannot claim the right to privacy as you are in a government or business-owned space. Also, how else can police limit crime, if many urban citizens refuse to cooperate with the police. The police cannot effectively do their job without the cooperation of citizens, thus they must resort to surveillance for their extra set of eyes.
There never was or ever will be a civil country in which its citizens will have true freedom. The citizens must give away some of their rights so that they could live in a lawful society.
If you want an example of a country really limiting the freedoms of citizens, look at North Korea.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The real question is - what sort of society suggest this as a solution?

BTS - your response makes me smile. You go out of your way to defend draconian measures your government is implementing to use against its own people.

No, you're just trying to make them seem draconian, when in reality they are not. If the use of spy drones is draconian, then so is all the methods they currently use that spy drones can replace. But I don't see you complaining about all those methods already in use...

For someone who claims to be a fan of freedom and democracy, it seems like you spend a lot of time defending measures, policies, and tactics that are the exact opposite of what you claim to support.

Not really, because you're not really bringing up much about measure, policies, and tactics that take away freedom and democracy. You may think you are, but in reality, you are just posting a bunch of crap that has little to no overall effect.

Its ironic actually. Before bush, there was none of this stuff. No spy plane,

Spy planes have been around since at least the 50s. I'm guessing you mean spy drones, but even then, those go back to the 1930s. Neither of them is anything new by a long shot.

no CCTV,

We've had CCTV since it was created, but it's all inside privately-owned building and government facilities. If you're talking about CCTV in public places like you see in England, we still don't have that, nor is anyone suggesting we get it.

no biometric data on ID cards,

That's only the most recent name of something that politicians have been trying to pass since the Reagan Administration, if not earlier. However, implementing such a thing does not actually infringe on people's freedoms. People say "the government wants it so they can track us!" Wouldn't tracking devices work better? These cards couldn't be used to track anyone unless a mandatory ID check policy was put in place. And even then, the cards wouldn't even be needed. Our regular state IDs and social security cards would work just as well.

no wiretaps and the government reading your mail.

You're joking, right? Clinton pulled that crap. So did Bush Sr. So did Reagan. So did Carter. So did Ford. An I seriously doubt there's any doubt about Nixon.

Now, its all in place, and people hate bush, but yet for some reason defend all the crazy stuff he has done.

You trying to blame him for something he didn't do, and me calling you out on it, does not mean that I'm defending the stuff he's done.

They claim to be supporting democracy and 'freedom', yet people like yourself are trying to justify why your government needs to watch you 24/7, tap your phone, read your mail, put armed gards throughout your society, and other really crazy measures that until now were only seen in the old Soviet Union, China, and other totalitarian government structures.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm only showing how full of shit you are.

I find it ironic so many Americans have fallen for the bait-and-switch here. Your not supporting your country, democracy, or freedom if you support those sorts of methods in your society.

The only one trying to pull a bait-and-switch here is you. I'm really surprised that you haven't realized that nine times out of ten, you fail.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Before bush, there was none of this stuff. No spy planes, no CCTV, no biometric data on ID cards, no wiretaps and the government reading your mail.

Just like before Al Gore there was no environment or internet.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

No, you're just trying to make them seem draconian, when in reality they are not. If the use of spy drones is draconian, then so is all the methods they currently use that spy drones can replace. But I don't see you complaining about all those methods already in use.

Your statement was not limited to spy planes. Neither was mine. Why are you now restricting your answer to just spy planes. When I said draconian, I was referring to all the aforementioned techniques.

Are you being thick or are you just trying to avoid the question there?

Warrant less wiretaps, sneak-n-peak warrants, reading your mail, listening in on conversations with your lawyer, CCTV, spy drones, and all the rest of the 'new powers' the current administration has implemented - your fine with all of that? If so, then I am wasting my breath. Also, your sense of 'freedom' must be really eschew. I find it hard to believe a 'free' country needs those things in place. I also find it impossible to believe one can live in a 'free' country if the government is reading your mail, monitoring what you watch, what Internet sites you visit, and listening in on your phone calls.

Not really, because you're not really bringing up much about measure, policies, and tactics that take away freedom and democracy. You may think you are, but in reality, you are just posting a bunch of crap that has little to no overall effect.

As per my previous paragraph above, again, your not bothered by any of that? You don't think any of the aforementioned new 'changes' in American society have any effect on freedom? If not, then again, your either thick or just silly.

Spy planes have been around since at least the 50s. I'm guessing you mean spy drones, but even then, those go back to the 1930s. Neither of them is anything new by a long shot.

Again, thick or silly? Sure there have been spy planes around since the 1930's. That being said, they haven't been used to spy on the American people without warrants, without oversight. In fact, they have been restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act. Thats the act that bars the US government from using military resources to police the people. The use of spy planes, and other military resources, is a direct violation of acts put in place to limit the federal government from abusing its power and turning the country into a police state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The fact your willing to throw out another protection that generations before you put in place to protect your rights and the rights of your countrymen seems a bit short sighted and ignorant to me.

We've had CCTV since it was created, but it's all inside privately-owned building and government facilities. If you're talking about CCTV in public places like you see in England, we still don't have that, nor is anyone suggesting we get it.

Again, you seem to be ill informed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002726_pf.html

D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.

Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence.

The District is following cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia...

Thats just a few of the major cities there. Virginia, Tampa Bay, and others also have followed suit. In fact, Tampa Bay made sure prior to the Super bowl they had the city covered. Virginia has done the same in all of its major metropolitan areas.

To argue that as you stated 'we still don't have that, nor is anyone suggesting we get it' means you have not been paying attention.

That's only the most recent name of something that politicians have been trying to pass since the Reagan Administration, if not earlier. However, implementing such a thing does not actually infringe on people's freedoms. People say "the government wants it so they can track us!" Wouldn't tracking devices work better? These cards couldn't be used to track anyone unless a mandatory ID check policy was put in place. And even then, the cards wouldn't even be needed. Our regular state IDs and social security cards would work just as well.

Actually, the best tool to track people is their mobile phone. Your mobile phone can be used to track you within a matter of 3 feet. Also, mobile carriers in America must store your GPS location for 10 years. That means they can see everywhere you have been for the past 10 years if you carried your phone with you.

Its the same here in Ireland and the UK. There have been two high profile cases recently where the only evidence that the police used to convict was the GPS location of the suspects mobile phone.

You're joking, right? Clinton pulled that crap. So did Bush Sr. So did Reagan. So did Carter. So did Ford. An I seriously doubt there's any doubt about Nixon.

You trying to blame him for something he didn't do, and me calling you out on it, does not mean that I'm defending the stuff he's done.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm only showing how full of shit you are.

Again, how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Sure the previous right-wingers may have attempted to remove Constitutional protections and enact such legislation to allow the abuses I list above, but only the bush admin succeeded in doing this.

Also, you are actively defending what he has done. You ignore the fact spy planes/drones and other surveillance techniques have been barred by use - which is why they are trying to change that. You ignore the fact that prior to bush the government couldn't listen in on your phone calls without a warrant. Your ignoring the fact that the government couldn't read your mail without a warrant. I could continue that list, but just look to my first paragraph.

Your defending all of those techniques. Trying to say 'they have always been happening' and that 'other presidents tried the same thing' are statements in defence of those actions.

To act either ignorant like you don't know or argue that others tried is defending those techniques mate.

The only one trying to pull a bait-and-switch here is you. I'm really surprised that you haven't realized that nine times out of ten, you fail.

You seem to actively ignore whats happening around you and try and justify the actions of a government who is removing your rights and freedoms.

One day, when you have children you can tell them of the America you gave away. You can tell them you lived in a time when the government didn't listen in on your phone calls. You can tell them you lived in a time when the government didn't read your mail. You can tell them of a time when the government didn't have CCTV everywhere and spy drones monitoring the people. You can tell them all the liberties you had, but you gave away.

Then, it will be up to you to explain to them why.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Thats the act that bars the US government from using military resources to police the people. The use of spy planes, and other military resources, is a direct violation of acts put in place to limit the federal government from abusing its power and turning the country into a police state.

I believe that would prevent the armed forces from using the drones, not prevent the police from using ex military technology.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Are you being thick or are you just trying to avoid the question there?

*sigh* thats really not needed.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Your statement was not limited to spy planes. Neither was mine. Why are you now restricting your answer to just spy planes. When I said draconian, I was referring to all the aforementioned techniques.

The whole topic is about spy drones. You trying to expand it to include other stuff just goes to show how weak your position was right from the beginning.

Are you being thick or are you just trying to avoid the question there?

I could ask you the same thing.

Warrant less wiretaps, sneak-n-peak warrants, reading your mail, listening in on conversations with your lawyer, CCTV, spy drones, and all the rest of the 'new powers' the current administration has implemented - your fine with all of that? If so, then I am wasting my breath. Also, your sense of 'freedom' must be really eschew. I find it hard to believe a 'free' country needs those things in place. I also find it impossible to believe one can live in a 'free' country if the government is reading your mail, monitoring what you watch, what Internet sites you visit, and listening in on your phone calls.

It's funny that each time you reply, you add other stuff which, like the stuff you added earlier, has absolutely no bearing on the issue of spy drones. Like I said above, it just goes to show how weak your position was right from the beginning.

As per my previous paragraph above, again, your not bothered by any of that? You don't think any of the aforementioned new 'changes' in American society have any effect on freedom? If not, then again, your either thick or just silly.

Well, I'm sorry if I've seen no effect on my freedoms. Sure, we hear about people getting arrested for protesting the war and speaking out against Bush all the time, but interestingly enough we never actually hear of anyone going to jail. Do you know why? Because the arrests were unconstitutional, so every one of us who were arrested had charges dropped. And I say "us" because you're not the only one who's been arrested for protesting a government.

Again, thick or silly? Sure there have been spy planes around since the 1930's. That being said, they haven't been used to spy on the American people without warrants, without oversight.

And no one is suggesting using spy planes on American citizens.

In fact, they have been restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act. Thats the act that bars the US government from using military resources to police the people. The use of spy planes, and other military resources, is a direct violation of acts put in place to limit the federal government from abusing its power and turning the country into a police state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

That legislation prevents local law enforcement agencies from utilizing military personnel or military-owned equipment from conducting actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agencies. It does not prevent them from acquiring their own equipment and utilizing it.

The fact your willing to throw out another protection that generations before you put in place to protect your rights and the rights of your countrymen seems a bit short sighted and ignorant to me.

And the fact that you can't apply laws correctly seems ignorant to me.

Again, you seem to be ill informed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002726_pf.html

D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.

Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence.

The District is following cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia...

Thats just a few of the major cities there. Virginia, Tampa Bay, and others also have followed suit. In fact, Tampa Bay made sure prior to the Super bowl they had the city covered. Virginia has done the same in all of its major metropolitan areas.

To argue that as you stated 'we still don't have that, nor is anyone suggesting we get it' means you have not been paying attention.

Okay, I was wrong about that. But you still haven't explained how using CCTV in public is a violation of privacy.

Actually, the best tool to track people is their mobile phone. Your mobile phone can be used to track you within a matter of 3 feet. Also, mobile carriers in America must store your GPS location for 10 years. That means they can see everywhere you have been for the past 10 years if you carried your phone with you.

Its the same here in Ireland and the UK. There have been two high profile cases recently where the only evidence that the police used to convict was the GPS location of the suspects mobile phone.

Talk about switch-and-bait. From biometric database to cell phones. Lovely.

Again, how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Sure the previous right-wingers may have attempted to remove Constitutional protections and enact such legislation to allow the abuses I list above, but only the bush admin succeeded in doing this.

Clinton was hardly a right-winger.

Also, you are actively defending what he has done. You ignore the fact spy planes/drones and other surveillance techniques have been barred by use -

No, spy drones have not been barred from use.

which is why they are trying to change that.

They're not trying to change anything.

You ignore the fact that prior to bush the government couldn't listen in on your phone calls without a warrant. Your ignoring the fact that the government couldn't read your mail without a warrant. I could continue that list, but just look to my first paragraph.

And you ignore the fact that that never stopped them before.

Your defending all of those techniques. Trying to say 'they have always been happening' and that 'other presidents tried the same thing' are statements in defence of those actions.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "defense," otherwise you would not have made such an erroneous statement.

To act either ignorant like you don't know or argue that others tried is defending those techniques mate.

Is me pointing out that you're an asshole defending your right to be an asshole?

You seem to actively ignore whats happening around you and try and justify the actions of a government who is removing your rights and freedoms.

You're trying to inundate us with alarmist propaganda in an attempt to scare us into agreeing with you. That's akin to England's new wave of propaganda posters.

One day, when you have children you can tell them of the America you gave away. You can tell them you lived in a time when the government didn't listen in on your phone calls. You can tell them you lived in a time when the government didn't read your mail. You can tell them of a time when the government didn't have CCTV everywhere and spy drones monitoring the people. You can tell them all the liberties you had, but you gave away.

Then, it will be up to you to explain to them why.

And that's exactly the kind of propaganda I'm talking about. Thank you for proving my point.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

The whole topic is about spy drones. You trying to expand it to include other stuff just goes to show how weak your position was right from the beginning.

I was pointing out this is merely yet another nail in the coffin of freedom. It started with warrant-less wiretaps, then reading your mail, monitoring your internet usage, etc. - and now has got to the point where they want to use military spy drones to monitor the American people.

The fact you are actively ignoring the substance of the argument and blindly claiming 'all is well' shows how far some people go to hide their heads in the sand to ignore the signs all around them.

Well, I'm sorry if I've seen no effect on my freedoms.

I can name a few freedoms you no longer have. Just because you haven't yet been in court to challenge the loss of your freedoms doesn't mean you haven't lost them.

And no one is suggesting using spy planes on American citizens.

Are you reading the same article above? Thats exactly what they are doing.

Okay, I was wrong about that. But you still haven't explained how using CCTV in public is a violation of privacy.

So your supporting CCTV everywhere in your country? You really think that its a good idea to have cameras covering the nation and your government monitoring your every move 24/7?

Your not bothered by that?

The fact your act ignorant to whats going on around you with a 'how does this effect me' attitude seems, well, like your actively trying to ignore how bad things really are, and attempting to list anyone who points out your government is moving towards a police state as off the mark.

I live in a country where I can talk to my lawyer without having the government listen in. In my country, the cops need a warrant to come into my home. In my country, the government can't listen in on my phone calls or read my mail unless they have a warrant.

The fact you can't say any of those things if your living in America should bother you.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I was pointing out this is merely yet another nail in the coffin of freedom. It started with warrant-less wiretaps, then reading your mail, monitoring your internet usage, etc. - and now has got to the point where they want to use military spy drones to monitor the American people.

First off, no, you were not trying to point out "another nail in the coffin." It wasn't until your original tactic of trying to make America look bad for something failed that you brought other instances up. Secondly, you claimed that all those other instances were the fault of Bush, when in reality they were all done by previous administrations.

The fact you are actively ignoring the substance of the argument and blindly claiming 'all is well' shows how far some people go to hide their heads in the sand to ignore the signs all around them.

I'm not ignoring the substance of the argument. You are trying to add irrelevant data into the argument.

I can name a few freedoms you no longer have.

So name them already.

Just because you haven't yet been in court to challenge the loss of your freedoms doesn't mean you haven't lost them.

You're wrong about that. I was arrested for decorating downtown LA with anti-Bush/Republican fliers.

**link** Here's what they looked like. <-- CLICK! **end link**

I was arrested with attempt to incite a riot. When the freedom of speech was brought up, that charge was dropped. So then they tried to charge me with defacing public property, but that charge also got dropped on the grounds that if they wanted to charge me with that, they would've done so when they first arrested me, instead of later on when the initial charges were dropped. (I put up those fliers during the '04 presidential elections.)

Are you reading the same article above? Thats exactly what they are doing.

Yes, I am. I'm seeing an article about spy drones, not spy planes. Learn the difference.

So your supporting CCTV everywhere in your country? You really think that its a good idea to have cameras covering the nation and your government monitoring your every move 24/7?

Nice try, CptSpinDoctor.

Your not bothered by that?

You have yet to tell me why CCTV cameras in high-crime areas should bother me. Despite the fact that I've already asked...

The fact your act ignorant to whats going on around you with a 'how does this effect me' attitude seems, well, like your actively trying to ignore how bad things really are, and attempting to list anyone who points out your government is moving towards a police state as off the mark.

Oh, right, because asking how something affects me is a bad thing. Well, it is if the only honest answer is contrary to what you want people to believe. Is that the case?

I live in a country where I can talk to my lawyer without having the government listen in.

No, you just have the UK listening... Gee, that's so much better...

In my country, the cops need a warrant to come into my home.

Not if they have a reason to believe something terribly wrong (bomb building, for example) is occuring in your home.

In my country, the government can't listen in on my phone calls or read my mail unless they have a warrant.

Heh. And you call me "ignorant."

The fact you can't say any of those things if your living in America should bother you.

Actually, the fact that I can say those things shows that you're an idiot. But then again, 95% of my communication occurs via the internet, eliminating the need for mail and telephones... Welcome to the 21st century.