DHS-Funded Drone Spies On Private Gun Sale

[Drayno]

This thread is a joke and anyone that believes anything on Infowars is a clown.

Not even going to dignify this.

[+OverSword]

I thought it was the Capitalists who sold everything to China? Is selling stuff wrong? Does there need to be a Big Brother to tell US citizen buisnessmen who they can sell too?

So your problem is not with the Drone, but with the example they used to portray the drone's abilities? You're seeing anti-gun bias in their use of a Legal gun sale being portrayed as needing watching?

For the first part, try to sell something to Cuba and see what happens, and to the second part.....yes. Just read post #24 to see why. Call me paraniod if you want, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.

I think it's a little disgusting that people aren't against a government literally trillions of dollars in debt wasting money to keep such a close eye on our activities. Every politician should have ten of these above them at all times to be fair.

[Babe Ruth]

Arming terrorists? The US government is the only one on our side of the pond that arms terrorist. And they dont even charge them. Its paid for by the US tax payer. And that is who you want to hold this power?

Good heavens, our US department of JustUs even "lets the guns walk" across the southern border.

[+DieChecker]

For the first part, try to sell something to Cuba and see what happens, and to the second part.....yes. Just read post #24 to see why. Call me paraniod if you want, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.

I think it's a little disgusting that people aren't against a government literally trillions of dollars in debt wasting money to keep such a close eye on our activities. Every politician should have ten of these above them at all times to be fair.

Depends on if it is wasted. I think that having our soldiers over in Afghanistan trying to bring order to people who don't want it, and hate us, is wasting our money. I don't think that using devices that can catch twice as many criminals, or track them more cheaply then an airplane or helicopter, or which can identify/prevent illegal border crossing.... all without risking human life, is a waste of money.

Just show me where these drones have been used by the Federal Government to spy on unsuspecting innocent civilians for no reason, and I'll 100% back getting rid of them. There are many, many things that Could be used to violate privacy, but unless those things are shown to violate privacy without reason, then it is just a bunch of "What Ifs". What if the government used our phones to track us constantly, in real time. What if the government was monitoring what we watch on TV. What if the government monitored all your email and saved it. What if the government used static cameras to watch everyone everyday? Surely the government can do any of these things. But, do they? How much of the time is Mr DieChecker's email read, or his actions monitored, or what he watches on the internet, or TV, monitored? Even if the answer is 100% of the time, I go no where I should not be, I don't watch anything I should not watch, I don't email or make phone calls about stuff that is of national security.... so I just would not care. But, if even 1 terrorist event that would have killed dozens is prevented, I consider that worthwhile.

Question: Is there some reason that the government SHOULD be watching you? Just a Yes or No is OK. If No, then why worry about them watching you? Do you think they are going to blackmail you with some mildly embarrising action/situation?

[+OverSword]

Question: Is there some reason that the government SHOULD be watching you? Just a Yes or No is OK. If No, then why worry about them watching you? Do you think they are going to blackmail you with some mildly embarrising action/situation?

No. but like I asked before, don't you see a problem with a government multiple trillions of dollars in debt spending money on this type of thing? Keep in mind that the only large ilegal weapon shipment across our southern border was in fact perpetrated by the DOJ and resulted in the death of an American border patrol. A man whos life I'm sure his family felt was priceless.

Also since you didn't seem to get it the first few times, I don't like the imagery of Americans engaged in LEGAL activities being portrayed as ilegal. I know this company is not specifically a government agency but being MIL-SPEC certified they are closely associated with government agencies located in the pentagon so obviously know how to correcty target thier buyers through compelling advertisements/ ie showing them what they want to see. Advertising 101.

[+OverSword]

If you question my knowlege about such things I worked at a mil-spec production company and helped in the design of the very first production night vision goggles and also virtual reality hardware (the gloves to be specific) this was top secret stuff at the time and the company I worked for had strict oversight and close dealings with high ranking military officers and civilian advisors.

[Capt Amerika]

So whats the problem?

How is this any different than having a helicopter flying higher above doing the same surveillance?

At least this way save the taxpayer money.

For the record, when two guys feel the need to meet waaaaay out in the country to make a simple transaction, you can believe there is illegal activity involved.

What if the one guy was a felon and the other guy had stolen weapons?

Is it still a legal transaction? Nope.

Sorry, but while i like my freedoms, i also like the police to enforce the laws and watching criminals is not a violation of my privacy or any of my rights.

I am not as quick as some to hand over my right to be protected by the govt but i will accept that they have a job to do as long as they do it in a manner that doesnt violate my rights.

[+OverSword]

For the record, when two guys feel the need to meet waaaaay out in the country to make a simple transaction, you can believe there is illegal activity involved.

What if the one guy was a felon and the other guy had stolen weapons?

Is it still a legal transaction? Nope.

Sorry, but while i like my freedoms, i also like the police to enforce the laws and watching criminals is not a violation of my privacy or any of my rights.

I am not as quick as some to hand over my right to be protected by the govt but i will accept that they have a job to do as long as they do it in a manner that doesnt violate my rights.

That is quite a presumption. And while you claim "you're not too quick to hand over your rights to privacy" you'll apparently do it just the same. The very definition of Ben Franklins motto, (beating dead horse here) those who exchange freedoms for security deserve niether. That's you captain commie. You should change your name to more accurately describe your view point although puttin a 'k' in America, is a pretty good indicator.

[AsteroidX]

Well then, give us uneducated indoctrinated, freedom hating masses an enlightened perspective on what drones are used for.

No need. Your already admittedly Freedom hating.

[lightly]

these things are going to be all over the place soon. Operated by Federal, State, and Local officials... and, private interests.

Now i'm curious as to how much , and often, they are subsidized . ? Government and Industry March on .. hand in hand in pocket . (lol)

*

Edited February 26, 2013 by lightly

[hatecraft]

I would... willl.... be OK with a drone following me. The only crimes I commit are eating badly and going 40 in a 35. It would be a horrendous waste of time and money to follow me, and I think that the FedGov would recognize that and deploy drones only where there is probable cause.

Be careful. Before you know it, eating badly will be a federal offense.

[AsteroidX]

Asteroid: you should have no problem with this, given your stance on privacy that you expressed when I wouldnt tell you what country I'm from.

Don't you consider "driving into the middle of nowhere" at least as "dishonest" as someone not giving you private information, and therefore a potential "threat", and so infringing on their privacy is ok by you?

Stellar I am glad you see what I was trying to point out. I believe we had that conversation int he hypocrisy thread. And sometimes one must drag another along a bit to show them just what hypocrisy is and specifically in this thread how it will be used to invade our privacy.

The relevent BOR:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Edited February 26, 2013 by AsteroidX

[+OverSword]

Be careful. Before you know it, eating badly will be a federal offense.

That is actually true. More and more you will hear the term 'wellness'. I am in the health insurance industry (since Clinton signed NAFTA and sent my mil-spec job in electronics to Canada and Mexico) And sit in 2 meetings a week focusing on the implementaion of the affordable care act. it will go something like this, your wellness worker will note that you are out of your optimum weight on the body mass index, they will then make you set goals to fix that. If you do not reach those goals you're premiums will be raised up to 30% per year. Thanks government

[AsteroidX]

Be careful. Before you know it, eating badly will be a federal offense.

It will be a taxable offense on your Obamacare premiums.

[AsteroidX]

In order to counter the threats posed by global terrorist organizations, organized crime gangs, and cross-border infiltration, the nation's homeland security budget is forecast to reach US$63.7 billion by 2017. As the US seeks to enhance its aviation and border security, the demand for equipment relating to these categories will increase. Further opportunities are expected to arise as the US invests in communication systems, the modernization of its aviation, naval, and land defense systems, and the enhancement of its nuclear defense capabilities.

cite withheld for sensitivity issues. But thats the tip of the iceberg. That 63.7B could go alot further somewhere else. Like deficit reduction.

The homeland security budget of the US prioritizes the mission areas of preventing terrorism, securing borders, enforcing and administering immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace, ensuring resilience to disasters, and providing essential support to national and economic security. Securing the nation from terrorism remained as a main focus of the DHS in 2013, and during the forecast period a significant amount of the homeland security budget is expected to be allocated to the prevention of terrorism and enhancement of security. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks the US has continued to increase security levels in all its airports. In order to prevent attacks from global terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, an increased focus is expected to be placed on creating a multi-layered system to strengthen aviation security from the time a passenger purchases a ticket to arrival at his or her destination.

Edited February 26, 2013 by AsteroidX

[MichaelW]

Not even going to dignify this.

You just did.

So, now that you've bothered to reply, say something.

[Gummug]

That is actually true. More and more you will hear the term 'wellness'. I am in the health insurance industry (since Clinton signed NAFTA and sent my mil-spec job in electronics to Canada and Mexico) And sit in 2 meetings a week focusing on the implementaion of the affordable care act. it will go something like this, your wellness worker will note that you are out of your optimum weight on the body mass index, they will then make you set goals to fix that. If you do not reach those goals you're premiums will be raised up to 30% per year. Thanks government

If they really care about our health, they should get rid of all the GMO's, imo. (And before I get a lot of flak: there's a difference between hybridized plants and animals and GMO's, which SOME here at UM are smart enough to know.)

[Gummug]

Not even going to dignify this.

Very smart, imo. Don't feed the trolls.

[MichaelW]

Very smart, imo. Don't feed the trolls.

So by definition, I shouldn't be feeding you, him, or anyone else that believes the OP?

[ninjadude]

how it will be used to invade our privacy.

The relevent BOR:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

While I don't want any drones flying around at all in the US, where does the bolded part say ANYTHING about privacy? Where does it say that government cannot observe? Secure is not private. You can be secure, not searched, etc. But still observed. The 18th century had no concept of flying machines that could hover and look in your windows or machines that can surveil from space. So are you a strict constitutionalist which would mean they can observe or a realist that Congress has the power and duty to pass laws outlawing this?

[preacherman76]

Infowars is hardly a creditable source on these kinds of stories. Has anyone else picked up on this story and offered alternative explainations or is this just more fear mongering?

Infowars told me 5 years ago that this was soon to be. They (main stream) said he was crazy then. And now they say its a good thing. Looks more and more like infowars is the only one with any creditbility.

[preacherman76]

Yep. Who would you have holding the power to operate drone? Private Industry security firms???

Other then making some really cool RC's for kids to play with, I dont want anyone holding this power. With as many innocents as we have killed with these machines, the next 9/11 will be deserved. We should destroy every damn drone ever made burn the blue prints and outlaw them on any battle field.

Edited February 27, 2013 by preacherman76

[lightly]

While I don't want any drones flying around at all in the US, where does the bolded part say ANYTHING about privacy? Where does it say that government cannot observe? Secure is not private. You can be secure, not searched, etc. But still observed. The 18th century had no concept of flying machines that could hover and look in your windows or machines that can surveil from space. So are you a strict constitutionalist which would mean they can observe or a realist that Congress has the power and duty to pass laws outlawing this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized .

I know there are now laws in place which preclude our right to privacy anywhere OUTDOORS... but I would reason that a drone spying on us is no different than a cop in a helicopter , or a tree, spying on us.. and that being spied on is (imo) an unreasonable search. What do you think SECURE against unreasonable searches means? What's the difference between a cop on foot or a drone or helicopter or satellite in the air peeking through our windows??? reasonable search???

[Yamato]

What's the difference between a cop on foot or a drone or helicopter or satellite in the air peeking through our windows??? reasonable search???

For one thing, they don't need a court order (search warrant) when they fly a drone over your house.

What laws preclude our privacy anywhere outdoors btw?

[Gromdor]

We already have traffic cams. I would imagine the drones operate just like mobile traffic cams. Private companies operating it for profit and cities/states paying them a portion of fines/funds recovered per incident. Most of the privacy law ground-work would already have a precedence with traffic cam laws.