145 replies to this topic

[OverSword]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

The hobgoblin is that civilian (police) operated drones are an actual threat to anyone.

I'm not buying to any conspiricy theory of Fraud or Fear. I'm simply thinking for myself, and using common sense and logic. Which both tell me that the Ultra-Privacy people are trying to say they are protecting something that does not exist. What real privacy do you have??

This isn't about police drones.

And as to what real privacy do you have?  Less and less and with your attitude even less yet to come.

[DieChecker]

OverSword, on 11 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

This isn't about police drones.

And as to what real privacy do you have?  Less and less and with your attitude even less yet to come.

What exactly do you need privacy For? What does it Add to your life? Why are you greedy for it?

I thought the thread was about loss of privacy due to drones flying over US cities. Is that not what it is about?

Edited by DieChecker, 11 December 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[MichaelW]

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

And besides, drones have commercial as well as military uses. Hell, they were using them in Christchurch to look inside buildings that were considered too dangerous for humans to enter.

Drone use doesn't automatically mean surveillance.

[Simbi Laveau]

We are catching mixer suspects etc,within hours now. Between surveillance cameras,and facial recognition ,with the drones ,they're caught within 24 hours of it being on the news.
I was against the drones initially,but if it catches bad guys faster ,I'm all for it .

[RaptorBites]

MichaelW, on 12 December 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

Prison Planet = Alex Jones

Alex Jones frequently talks about FEMA Death Camps and fear mongering.

Anything that Alex Jones supports is pure hogwash.  So yes, I will sit back, point and laugh.

[Jinxdom]

Why do you need privacy outside of your home? As long as I am free to do as I please I could careless about how many camera's are around the city as long as it's not in my home. The difference between a drone and helicopter is nil. Personally if one was to crash in my yard I'd pick the drone because it would be easier to clean-up and the pilot wouldn't die. Not to mention the other uses. People should be more worried about changing our laws to allow us more freedom then worrying about what they do is on camera.

Not once has the police successfully entered my house without just cause.

[The New Richard Nixon]

The question is why do you need privacy outside your home? work for a gang? smuggling? that would be more suspicious than a drone flying around

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Except that the FBI, NSA and CSI, along with Homeland Security (and the TSA) have uncovered and prevented dozens, maybe hundreds of planned terrorist actions. When these things are really happening it is not the promotion of Fear for fear itself, it is actually stopping bad guys.

If your city asks for more police officers are they really just trying to build an army to take over the civlians or are they trying to protect the populace better? Obviously with an army of cops the police would have a better chance of establishing martial law, but what the hell would be the motivation?

The hobgoblin is that civilian (police) operated drones are an actual threat to anyone.

I'm not buying to any conspiricy theory of Fraud or Fear. I'm simply thinking for myself, and using common sense and logic. Which both tell me that the Ultra-Privacy people are trying to say they are protecting something that does not exist. What real privacy do you have??

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions?  Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

But for me, using only 2 examples, it is ludicrous to suggest that pizza deliverymen could really successfully attack Fort Dix, or that 7 homeless losers in Miami could have pulled off whatever great crime their addled minds might have been led to by their FBI handlers.

It is shades of DeLorean, all over again.  The vast majority of the domestic cases generated by the Global War On Terror were government entrapment, pure and simple.  You might believe that nonsense, but I do not.  It is the classic case of the federal agencies justifying their existence by concocting half-truths and selling them to the media and a gullible public.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to, whether it be Santa Claus or the tenets of the GWOT, but I will pass, thanks.

[OverSword]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

What exactly do you need privacy For? What does it Add to your life? Why are you greedy for it?

I thought the thread was about loss of privacy due to drones flying over US cities. Is that not what it is about?

What exactly do I need privacy for?????  Go back to East Germany franz.

MichaelW, on 12 December 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm not going to take sites with clearly biased names such as "prison planet" seriously. The OP has proven in the past that they don't know what they are talking about so I'll leave the rest of UM to stand behind and point and laugh.

And besides, drones have commercial as well as military uses. Hell, they were using them in Christchurch to look inside buildings that were considered too dangerous for humans to enter.

Drone use doesn't automatically mean surveillance.

The drones you're reffering to are a far cry from the military drones (which in the USA it was ilegal for them to use against civilians until recently) The drones your referring to are useful life saving tools that more resemble a model plane than a military class radio controled dealer of death.

Simbi Laveau, on 12 December 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

We are catching mixer suspects etc,within hours now. Between surveillance cameras,and facial recognition ,with the drones ,they're caught within 24 hours of it being on the news.
I was against the drones initially,but if it catches bad guys faster ,I'm all for it .

Mixer suspects?  Could you be more specific?  And as far as facial recognition goes, have you seen minority report?  Is that realy the world you want to live in?  Not me.

[Simbi Laveau]

*cries laughing*
Oh,the mixer suspects ,you know,the ones at the party with the dry martini in their hand,all trying to meet the debutantes .

*rolling*

Autospell faux pas extraordinaire !


MURDER SUSPECTS.
nyc has so many security cameras now,I they intended to buy 30,000 drones so.....
I'm sure we now have state of the art facial recognition stuffs too .

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions?  Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

Even if only 10% are real... you would rather have your little bit more of privacy and have another 9-11 attack every two years?

Quote

But for me, using only 2 examples, it is ludicrous to suggest that pizza deliverymen could really successfully attack Fort Dix, or that 7 homeless losers in Miami could have pulled off whatever great crime their addled minds might have been led to by their FBI handlers.

Timothy McVeigh... Homeless military vet. Blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building
Ted Kaczynski.... The Unibomber... Homeless college professor. Deployed 14 bombs and killed 3 people.

Even the homeless can be successful terrorists.

Quote

it is shades of DeLorean, all over again.  The vast majority of the domestic cases generated by the Global War On Terror were government entrapment, pure and simple.  You might believe that nonsense, but I do not.  It is the classic case of the federal agencies justifying their existence by concocting half-truths and selling them to the media and a gullible public.

I beleive the greater majority of those who actually know about these things would disagree with you. All these terrorists get a trial, and any entrapment would ruin the government's case. If there is any entrapment, I think it would be minimal.

The Chrismas Tree Bomber here in Portland claimed entrapment because the FBI supplied him with the materials he wanted to commit his terrorist attacks. That is not entrapment. Entrapment is not providing the means, it is providing the motive. Few if any of the terrorists that are captured this way are recruited to do so by the FBI/Homeland Security. They already existed and the FBI found them and stopped them before the prospective terrorist had the opportunity to get REAL materials to accomplish their mission. Look at Timothy McVeigh, it took him a long time of Hate, but eventually he found those bomb materials.

Quote

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to, whether it be Santa Claus or the tenets of the GWOT, but I will pass, thanks.

Good luck to you also.

[DieChecker]

OverSword, on 12 December 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

What exactly do I need privacy for?????  Go back to East Germany franz.

That is not an answer.

Quote

The drones you're reffering to are a far cry from the military drones (which in the USA it was ilegal for them to use against civilians until recently) The drones your referring to are useful life saving tools that more resemble a model plane than a military class radio controled dealer of death.

They are the same drones. Just some are armed with weapons and some are not.

So are you only against Military intrusion into privacy, because I thought you were simply anti-drone altogether?

[OverSword]

DieChecker, on 12 December 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

That is not an answer.


They are the same drones. Just some are armed with weapons and some are not.

So are you only against Military intrusion into privacy, because I thought you were simply anti-drone altogether?

I think I've figured you out as far as privacy issues go:
You wife won't listen to you.  Your kids won't listen to you.  You are all thrilled that at last someone is listening to you!!

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 12 December 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Even if only 10% are real... you would rather have your little bit more of privacy and have another 9-11 attack every two years?


Timothy McVeigh... Homeless military vet. Blew up an Oklahoma Federal Building
Ted Kaczynski.... The Unibomber... Homeless college professor. Deployed 14 bombs and killed 3 people.

Even the homeless can be successful terrorists.


I beleive the greater majority of those who actually know about these things would disagree with you. All these terrorists get a trial, and any entrapment would ruin the government's case. If there is any entrapment, I think it would be minimal.

The Chrismas Tree Bomber here in Portland claimed entrapment because the FBI supplied him with the materials he wanted to commit his terrorist attacks. That is not entrapment. Entrapment is not providing the means, it is providing the motive. Few if any of the terrorists that are captured this way are recruited to do so by the FBI/Homeland Security. They already existed and the FBI found them and stopped them before the prospective terrorist had the opportunity to get REAL materials to accomplish their mission. Look at Timothy McVeigh, it took him a long time of Hate, but eventually he found those bomb materials.


Good luck to you also.

McVeigh had handlers.

Yes, Kaczynski was the real thing.

Yes, there are predators out and about, and fraudsters, and all manner of criminal, but that has been true since humans populated the planet.  Society has dealt with those people, rather well, all things considered.

To suggest that the government can completely rid the species of such miscreants is sophistry, yet that is what our government tells us.

Should we simply nullify the Bill Of Rights to comply with such sophistry?  Not in my book, no.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

It is safe to say that the GWOT is one of those contemporary hobgoblins.  The older hobgoblin is the War On Drugs.  I refuse to buy into that sophistry.

[Stellar]

Quote

They have prevented hundreds of planned terrorist actions?  Well, I suppose if you believe every story they tell that would be true.

Isnt that a kind if catch 22 argument? You claim the security is useless because they havent stopped any terrorist attacks... when you're shown terrorist attacks that they've stopped, you claim that its all lies perpetrated by the media in order to scare you into believing that the security is necessary, and its necessary to scare you into believing that the security is necessary because the security hasnt stopped any terrorist attacks... How is anyone supposed to argue with that?