145 replies to this topic

[pallidin]

I see no problems with drones being flown in the US.
Some are for practice(with new models), others are for authorized survailance.

Besides which, I have nothing to hide, and I take meds for my paranoia.  

[Michelle]

DieChecker, on 14 December 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Maybe they would and maybe that would be justified and maybe it is a waste of time. But, in reality how many people could they follow? How long would they follow you?

If they decided to follow you, it would not be at random.

Well, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

I suppose you can say that you don't have any minority friends.

That is not the point at all...how much privacy are you going to be allowed in the future? How far are you willing to sacrifice you privacy?

Maybe they would be justified? That comment, alone, scares the crap out of me. Since when did a maybe make me a suspect worthy of surveillance.

Edited by Michelle, 14 December 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 14 December 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Well that is possible. I just don't think it likely unless you subscribe to the whole Military Industrial Complex and Secret Government conspiricies. For drones to equal INSTITUTIONAL abuse, there would have to be a bunch of secret oligarchs who run the country by select manipulation of the Fed, the Military, the Education system, the Stock Markets, the President, the Congress, the Media, the Supreme Court, the Internet, and almost all the leaders of all other nations.

Are you suggesting that Ike, the man who pointed out the existence of the MIC and coined the phrase in the process, was a conspiracy nut case?

[Stellar]

Quote

How is the government going to watch Joe Average 24/7? They are going to devote a multi-million dollar drone to watching some random guy in the off chance he takes a wizz in the woods, or walks nakid on his back porch, or hoping that they commit a homicide on camera?

I was talking about privacy in general, not the drone. I see no difference between flying a drone and flying a helicopter. The pilot is simply in a different location.

As to privacy, I do understand why people want privacy, even if they arent committing any crimes.

[DieChecker]

Michelle, on 14 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Well, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

I suppose you can say that you don't have any minority friends.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. Are you saying there is a systemic violation of privacy rights toward ethic/racial minorities? Maybe there is in some parts of the nation, but I don't see it here in Oregon much.

Are you indirectly calling me a racist? Because I support a mobile, but very limited and expensive and specific use only security system?

Quote

That is not the point at all...how much privacy are you going to be allowed in the future? How far are you willing to sacrifice you privacy?

Isn't this the same as the Free Speech arguement, and the Gun Ownership arguement??

Should it be legal to own a M60 heavy machine gun, or a .50 cal Browning machine gun, and use it for home defense?

Should it be legal to fire off emails and voicemails about how you're going to murder government officials in their sleep?

There is an end to what is rationally allowed to Guns, Free Speech and also Privacy. I can see these taking a tiny, tiny fraction of freedom away... (Unless they get rid of helicopter police also, in which case the average citizen probably would get some privacy back.)
But I feel the gain is worth the hit. Just as taking heavy machine guns away form the population was worth the hit.

Quote

Maybe they would be justified? That comment, alone, scares the crap out of me. Since when did a maybe make me a suspect worthy of surveillance.

I say maybe, because I... being a citizen that has no idea how such justification would be approved... can't say what might be approved. That then is an issue with the agency/person issuing the approvals, not an issue with the technology.

If we go off Maybes with the technology, then we better dump computers, cars and airplanes, because all of these are dangerous.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that Ike, the man who pointed out the existence of the MIC and coined the phrase in the process, was a conspiracy nut case?

First let me quote the first appearance of the term by Ike...

Quote

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

http://en.wikipedia....ustrial_complex

You know what that reads to  me? "Watch out for legislators and industry lobbiest getting to friendly and pushing military projects unjustly." What I don't read there is, "Watch out for the secret society that is running the world through the US military."...

[DieChecker]

Stellar, on 14 December 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I was talking about privacy in general, not the drone. I see no difference between flying a drone and flying a helicopter. The pilot is simply in a different location.

As to privacy, I do understand why people want privacy, even if they arent committing any crimes.

I understand it too. That is why I have a fence and curtains. I'm simply not scared that a drone is going to ruin my life on a one in ten million chance that it flys by at 500 feet and gets 2000 pixels through an upstairs window. And I recognize that I would very much like to have even a household burgler caught Before he robs or even kills someone.

If a drone, or any camera really, caught video of one of the recent shooters... here in Portland at the Mall, or the Conneticut elementary school, and alerted authorities while the fellow was still unloading his stuff from his trunk, wouldn't you rather those 20 kids or those 3 shopper were still around, rather then dead, but everyone then has fewer cameras to worry about?? Public cameras and the drones are simply doing the work of a patrol car. Would you like patrol cars to be discontinued to reduce possible privacy issues?

[The New Richard Nixon]

We need drones to track dangerous people and organisations

[DieChecker]

One thing I thought of last night was the old concept of Watching your neighbors property. It used to be that everyone expected their neighbor to watch out for their place, and they would watch over the neighbors place in return. I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was robbing my house, I'd hope that one of the neighbors would report it. So then, how is a neighbor supposed to know you need help, unless they constantly infringe on your privacy?

Isn't this how Community Watch is supposed to work? They patrol around and look for anything wrong. How are they supposed to do that without looking at homes and through windows to guess what is going on? Not spying or Peeking on homeowners certainly, but looking none the less. Privacy is not a solid iron wall going around your property line. It is more like a curtain that you have to make sure is shut, because if it is open, the bad is on you.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 14 December 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

First let me quote the first appearance of the term by Ike...


http://en.wikipedia....ustrial_complex

You know what that reads to  me? "Watch out for legislators and industry lobbiest getting to friendly and pushing military projects unjustly." What I don't read there is, "Watch out for the secret society that is running the world through the US military."...

I know you are familiar with inference.  Do you suppose that he might have been inferring some things that he might not be able come right out and say?

Plus, a conspiracy can and does exist WITHOUT the presence of a secret society.  Which is to say that a secret society is not a necessary to a successful conspiracy, though it would certainly make things easier.

So back to my original point, I was not talking about a Secret Society at all.  We agree that Ike's comments do not reference a Secret Society.  I had not thought of it in those terms until you mentioned it.

I'm talking about men with common interests and goals taking effective control of the government so that their profits might be increased and sustained.  And I think that could easily be inferred from Ike's address.

[Michelle]

I suppose the people advocating this haven't heard of the NSA warrentless surveillance controversy. I think this will be one more tool in their arsenal to invade people's privacy. They estimate that there will be 30,000 of these things in the air by 2020, from the size of a toy on up, with some being owned by private companies.

Our neighbors and I look out for each other and I don't mind that. As a matter of fact one called me last week about a strange man walking around the house. It's when strangers, for whatever reason they deem fit, decide they have a justifiable reason to snoop into what I am doing. It could be for something as simple as having friends from all over the ME or calling someone in China. People have been put on a watch list for much less than that.

If people are worried about the OP source, the Washington Times did a story on it too.

[AliveInDeath7]

Not really surprised..

[Babe Ruth]

Orwell saw it coming, is what blows my mind.

But it is certainly here.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Do you suppose that he might have been inferring some things that he might not be able come right out and say?

Yes, perhaps. But the most famous use of the quote is to further the discussion of conspiricy buffs would claim there is an Illuminati or NWO council somewhere who are wearing Sith Robes and worshipping giant stone owls.

Quote

Plus, a conspiracy can and does exist WITHOUT the presence of a secret society.  Which is to say that a secret society is not a necessary to a successful conspiracy, though it would certainly make things easier.

I can agree with that. Which is why I posted specifically that I did not believe in a secret society, but could see corporate collusions with the legislative and executive branches.

Quote

I'm talking about men with common interests and goals taking effective control of the government so that their profits might be increased and sustained.  And I think that could easily be inferred from Ike's address.

Isn't that what all lobbists are trying to do? Gain control and influence? It is just that the military is the largest single spender in the US, and so it would naturally provide the largest target for those trying to get a bigger profit.

Not that I agree with that. I think lobbiests should be disallowed, or allowed only under specific circumstances... like testifying about their products/services to the entire congress.

Ike said we must "Guard against...". He did not say, "Fight the existing....". So, it could be deduced that he did Not think this was already a problem, but that he saw it very possibly happening.

[DieChecker]

Michelle, on 15 December 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

They estimate that there will be 30,000 of these things in the air by 2020, from the size of a toy on up, with some being owned by private companies.

There are an estimated 600,000+ private pilots (627K in 2010) in the US. That is People who own, or can rent a plane, and simply fly over your house as much as they want and take as many pics as they want.

Is that a source of worry to you also?

You like your neighbors watching out for you, but don't want the government to see anything. Is that right? Is the fear that someone corrupt in the government might get some kind of blackmail information?