News Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

[russ_watters]

Unmarked cars can't see through the walls of your house or into your backyard if you have a fence. You have an element of privacy.

But helicopters can. So if surveillance can be aerial or stealthy, why can't it be aerial and stealthy?

Because they're a tool of war.

So are guns and Humvees and two-way radios and velcro and bug spray. That is completely irrelevant to whether there is any moral/ethical issue with their use by police.

They allow law enforcement to spy on people in ways that they couldn't before.

No they don't. Drones allow police to spy on people in exactly the same way as they would with a helicopter -- they just do it better (cheaper, more stealthy, more efficient in personnel use). They are nothing more than a better way of doing the same thing.

Just because something is a superior tool doesn't mean the police should have it.

No doubt - and just because it is a superior tool doesn't mean they shouldn't. But when the superior tool breaks no new ground conceptually, there is no justification for not using it. If you disagree, be specific: what exactly is the moral/ethical line that was not crossed by a helicopter or unmarked car that is being crossed by a drone?

So far, all you are saying is that you don't want the police to be better at their jobs, which is ludicrous.

Or let's flip it over: if a cop comes up with a new or more effective way of doing something, what logical/ethical/legal test should he apply to determine whether this new device/tactic should be employed? If it makes him better at his job, he should automatically be forbidden from using it?

There are lots of high-powered weapons and armored vehicles police forces can use (and some do) that are big improvements over their standard equipment and vehicles, but that causes concerns about the militarization of the police forces. The only police forces that should have such things are those that absolutely need it.

Fine. Exactly how should the line be drawn? What exactly is the criteria? What exactly are the "concerns"?

 

[BobG]

Drones are silent and invisible as far as aircraft go when they're flying up high. That is why they are so effective against terrorists. You can't hear or see a drone when it's flying above and watching you.

At some point in the future, I guess there could be stealthy drones that conceivably could be used by a police force, but that's nowhere near the case for drones that are currently available.

From the government point of view (and the reason this received publicity in the first place), drones can't weigh more than 25 pounds and can't fly higher than 400 feet. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html .

This is an interim step that will serve until the FAA comes up with more comprehensive safety rules covering police departments, government agencies, and use by commercial companies. Whether privacy should or shouldn't be an issue can be debated, but the safety concerns over use of drones has been the only thing considered by government agencies so far.

Right now, any drones used by police forces will be about as stealthy as a flying lawn mower.

And even the military drones aren't exactly stealthy. Having more expensive cameras/sensors/etc, they can do the job from higher altitudes than the drones available to police, but that only helps them against low tech opponents with small arms. The real advantage of drones is that it doesn't risk a much more expensive plane or helicopter and doesn't risk any humans.

 

[CAC1001]

But helicopters can. So if surveillance can be aerial or stealthy, why can't it be aerial and stealthy?

Forgot to mention on the helicopters. Yes, helicopters can see onto your property, but you will generally be aware if there is a helicopter hovering up above your house as they are big and noisy. Law enforcement should not have the ability to watch you on your property without your knowing it when you think you are in privacy.

So are guns and Humvees and two-way radios and velcro and bug spray. That is completely irrelevant to whether there is any moral/ethical issue with their use by police.

The police don't ride around in Humvees. And yes they have guns, but the types of guns depends.

No they don't. Drones allow police to spy on people in exactly the same way as they would with a helicopter -- they just do it better (cheaper, more stealthy, more efficient in personnel use). They are nothing more than a better way of doing the same thing.

Yes, hence the "in ways they couldn't before." Police spying on someone with a helicopter is noisy. It can make the law enforcement's job more difficult, but it also prevents abuse on their part. Law enforcement officers do not always respect people's rights and freedoms. There have been problems with police lying in the courts for example. It's called Testilying. What makes you think law enforcement wouldn't eventually abuse the use of these drones?

No doubt - and just because it is a superior tool doesn't mean they shouldn't. But when the superior tool breaks no new ground conceptually, there is no justification for not using it. If you disagree, be specific: what exactly is the moral/ethical line that was not crossed by a helicopter or unmarked car that is being crossed by a drone?

A car cannot see through your homes walls or your fence. A helicopter can see over your fence, but you can hear it. A drone can watch you without your being aware of it at all.

So far, all you are saying is that you don't want the police to be better at their jobs, which is ludicrous.

Or let's flip it over: if a cop comes up with a new or more effective way of doing something, what logical/ethical/legal test should he apply to determine whether this new device/tactic should be employed? If it makes him better at his job, he should automatically be forbidden from using it? Fine. Exactly how should the line be drawn? What exactly is the criteria? What exactly are the "concerns"?

If it will give him new abilities to infringe on people's rights that he did not have before, then maybe so.

 

[CAC1001]

At some point in the future, I guess there could be stealthy drones that conceivably could be used by a police force, but that's nowhere near the case for drones that are currently available.

From the government point of view (and the reason this received publicity in the first place), drones can't weigh more than 25 pounds and can't fly higher than 400 feet. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/drones-up-to-25-pounds-allowed-for-u-s-safety-agencies.html .

This is an interim step that will serve until the FAA comes up with more comprehensive safety rules covering police departments, government agencies, and use by commercial companies. Whether privacy should or shouldn't be an issue can be debated, but the safety concerns over use of drones has been the only thing considered by government agencies so far.

That doesn't mean the government agencies are going about it in the right way.

Right now, any drones used by police forces will be about as stealthy as a flying lawn mower.

And even the military drones aren't exactly stealthy. Having more expensive cameras/sensors/etc, they can do the job from higher altitudes than the drones available to police, but that only helps them against low tech opponents with small arms. The real advantage of drones is that it doesn't risk a much more expensive plane or helicopter and doesn't risk any humans.

I am all for police being able to do things safer and more cheaply, but if it can infringe on people's rights, I think we need to go about it carefully. I do wonder what will happen if/when someone decides to shoot one of these things down if they see it hovering over their home, if they really are like the equivalent of a flying lawnmower where the person could hear it.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't see anything wrong with increasing the capability of police to monitor dangerous situations and high crime (public) areas, and visually track fugitives. There is of course the possibility that any technology might be used in ways that contradict the US Constitution. But there's no particular reason, imo, to suppose that this or any other technology will be used in that way.

 

[ThomasT]

I've lived in several densely populated urban-inner city areas, and I think that one of the main problems in those sorts of areas is gangs. I think that the implementation of the drone technology would enable the monitoring of gang activity to an extent not otherwise realizable -- and that it could lead to a decrease in gang activity.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

if the police drones had engines that were made loud on purpose, and maybe some bright blinking lights on them, would that make them acceptable?

 

[ThomasT]

if the police drones had engines that were made loud on purpose, and maybe some bright blinking lights on them, would that make them acceptable?

Even if not, I think they're acceptable. Why not? They can't see into your home. If you occasionally do some sort of questionable stuff in your back yard, then knowing that the drones might be out, you would, supposedly, curb that behavior.

Anyway, no, I don't think their presence should be made to be readily evident. The idea is to be able to get info wrt harmful elements of society. I see no reason to believe that this technology would be used against law abiding, and more or less innocent, members of society.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Even if not, I think they're acceptable. Why not? They can't see into your home. If you occasionally do some sort of questionable stuff in your back yard, then knowing that the drones might be out, you would, supposedly, curb that behavior.

Anyway, no, I don't think their presence should be made to be readily evident. The idea is to be able to get info wrt harmful elements of society. I see no reason to believe that this technology would be used against law abiding, and more or less innocent, members of society.

yes but we, presumably, live in a free society where we have principles of privacy

it's counter to the idea of "innocent before proven guilty" to have a situation such that people should be worried about being spied upon. It's intimidation, essentially. In this country, the government is not supposed to be out looking for reasons to throw people in jail.

I would also like to say that it is not really a matter of people doing things that are illegal, it is a matter of people doing things that could be questionable. The person viewing the tapes has to make a judgement call in that situation. In a situation where one is observed in supposedly private places, there would be a pressure. Not every action is black and white, especially when viewed in an odd context.

Picture this: I've got long hair, and sometimes I'm up late at night. One night, in particular, I had a strange and annoying feeling in my leg and couldn't sleep. I went out on a walk. As I was walking about campus, a police cruiser drove past. He didn't stop me, and nothing happened. But I definitely felt the "pressure".

This kind of pressure doesn't belong in a country like the USA. It's the sort of thing you'd find in an Orwellian future. The knowledge of undetectable eyes in the sky would lead to this pressure in far more cases than taking a walk at 3AM. Which is why I suggest making them very obvious. Or having very strict regulations put in place about air-space, etc. Yes, this would make it more difficult for the police to make good use of them, but hey, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[russ_watters]

Forgot to mention on the helicopters. Yes, helicopters can see onto your property, but you will generally be aware if there is a helicopter hovering up above your house as they are big and noisy. Law enforcement should not have the ability to watch you on your property without your knowing it when you think you are in privacy.

Well ignorance of the public to the law is not a good reason to forbid a police tactic: person with a fence should know they are not afforded protection from aerial surveilance.

The police don't ride around in Humvees. And yes they have guns, but the types of guns depends.

You can buy a Humvee as a civilian. My point is that your statement is devoid of meaning.

Yes, hence the "in ways they couldn't before." Police spying on someone with a helicopter is noisy. It can make the law enforcement's job more difficult, but it also prevents abuse on their part. Law enforcement officers do not always respect people's rights and freedoms.

You aren't understanding the issue. The law protects property based on the disposition of the property. Ie, put up a fence and now the police can't sit in a car and watch you. If surveillance is legal, it is typically legal to be covert. Putting up a fence does not change the legality of it being covert. "In ways they couldn't before" is improperly referenced to the covert nature: it should be referenced to the aerial nature. And obviously, the aerial nature has not changed in going from a helicopter to a drone.

Basically you are saying that if a house doesn't have a fence, covert aerial surveillance is acceptable because covert surveillance from the ground is acceptable, but if you install a fence, covert aerial surveillance is no longer acceptable. But you are missing the point of the fence: it inhibits ground surveillance, whether covert or open. In other words, the fence has nothing to do with whether surveilance can be covert, it just means it can't be from the ground.

It's called Testilying. What makes you think law enforcement wouldn't eventually abuse the use of these drones?
There have been problems with police lying in the courts for example.

No doubt pretty much every police power has been abused by a rogue police officer. That is not a legally defensible/logical reason for not having the power, it is an argument for making sure we have good cops. Similarly, we wouldn't take away a freedom/privilege for some civilians because some people abuse it. Obviously that would be unfair to the people who don't abuse it.

A car cannot see through your homes walls or your fence. A helicopter can see over your fence, but you can hear it. A drone can watch you without your being aware of it at all.

If becoming covert crosses no moral/ethical line for an unmarked car, how could it for making aerial surveillance covert? That makes no logical sense and for that reason I'm quite certain it would never fly in court.

If it will give him new abilities to infringe on people's rights that he did not have before, then maybe so.

'Some people may abuse it' is not a sound legal principle. If it were, I could just as easily use the argument to restrict most of your personal freedoms including the right to build that fence in the first place!

 

[BobG]

Someday, the privacy issues of drones could be a problem. Right now, the main difference between a police drone and a police helicopter is price. Police drones will perform the same functions police helicopters currently perform.

The more realistic concern is flight safety.

Do you think it's a good idea to have unmanned aircraft flying in the same air space as commercial and/or private pilots? And stepping further down the road, do you think it's good for commercial and private agencies to operate drones in common airspace? (A TV station using a drone in place of their traffic helicopter, for instance.)

 

[russ_watters]

The more realistic concern is flight safety.

Do you think it's a good idea to have unmanned aircraft flying in the same air space as commercial and/or private pilots? And stepping further down the road, do you think it's good for commercial and private agencies to operate drones in common airspace? (A TV station using a drone in place of their traffic helicopter, for instance.)

This is definitely a legitimate concern and a good enough reason why stealth should never be a problem: it will never be safe to have stealth aircraft sharing the sky with civilian aircraft. As such, drones should be lit as if they are normal aircraft, making the issue of stealth moot.

However, I would say that as long as the training and/or regulation for drone use is stringent, the safety issue can be managed. For example, if drones are never permitted above a certain altitude, they will never interfere with commercial air travel.

 

[ThomasT]

yes but we, presumably, live in a free society where we have principles of privacy

it's counter to the idea of "innocent before proven guilty" to have a situation such that people should be worried about being spied upon. It's intimidation, essentially. In this country, the government is not supposed to be out looking for reasons to throw people in jail.

I don't think that government, at any level, is doing that in the US. Which is not to say that I trust them. Just that there's no reason for them to be doing that in American society. There's nothing in it for the government to be victimizing innocent law abiding people -- and lots of potential backlash and negative consequences if they do.

I would also like to say that it is not really a matter of people doing things that are illegal, it is a matter of people doing things that could be questionable. The person viewing the tapes has to make a judgement call in that situation. In a situation where one is observed in supposedly private places, there would be a pressure. Not every action is black and white, especially when viewed in an odd context.

Ok, that seems like a ponderable point.

Picture this: I've got long hair, and sometimes I'm up late at night. One night, in particular, I had a strange and annoying feeling in my leg and couldn't sleep. I went out on a walk. As I was walking about campus, a police cruiser drove past. He didn't stop me, and nothing happened. But I definitely felt the "pressure".

Well, that feeling is sort of on you, isn't it? I'm retired, and sometimes I ride my bicycle at 4am when I've awakened and can't go back to sleep. Often at that time I encounter police cruisers, but have never been stopped. Maybe they know me. I don't know. But I've never felt any undue pressure by their presence. If anything, I'm glad they're around. A couple of times, in the early evening, I've noticed youths in my neighborhood who looked like they might be up to no good. Nothing bad has ever happened, but I feel safer knowing that there are professionals around whose job it is to protect the unarmed public ... like me.

... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I don't think that police having surveillance drone capability necessarily entails us giving up any essential liberties. Insofar as the surveillance drones might, say, decrease gang or nefariously motivated activity, then I think that the drones would actually increase the liberty of law abiding citizens.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A fence certainly changes things for observation from the ground, but it doesn't protect against activities done in plain view of an aircraft. http://www.caselaw4cops.net/searchandseizure/curtilage.htm

Note that in both of the aerial surveillance cases mentioned it specified what was observed with "the naked eye". While there have apparently not been any cases regarding "enhanced" visual observation in the sense of something like a "zoom lens" the SCOTUS has decided that the use of thermal imaging "enhanced" observation is unconstitutional. These particular cases also do not treat the issue, which you have blown off, of the knowledge of surveillance. The decisions noted both rely upon the fact that any person passing through the public airspace could have observed the marijuana plants in the backyards. It fails to address the situation of a person engaged in activity that would have ceased or moved such activity in the event that an aerial vehicle passed overhead. It would not seem to me that the "reasonable expectation of privacy" ought to surrender to undetectable surveillance vehicles. You mention "unmarked" police vehicles but we are not discussing "unmarked" police aircraft we are discussing undetectable ones. There is a rather large difference.

 

[skippy1729]

If they violate FAA rules (fly below 500 feet) and don't have a valid search warrant, just shoot them down. It would be a real interesting court case.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I don't think that government, at any level, is doing that in the US. Which is not to say that I trust them. Just that there's no reason for them to be doing that in American society. There's nothing in it for the government to be victimizing innocent law abiding people -- and lots of potential backlash and negative consequences if they do.

Ok, that seems like a ponderable point.

Well, that feeling is sort of on you, isn't it? I'm retired, and sometimes I ride my bicycle at 4am when I've awakened and can't go back to sleep. Often at that time I encounter police cruisers, but have never been stopped. Maybe they know me. I don't know. But I've never felt any undue pressure by their presence. If anything, I'm glad they're around. A couple of times, in the early evening, I've noticed youths in my neighborhood who looked like they might be up to no good. Nothing bad has ever happened, but I feel safer knowing that there are professionals around whose job it is to protect the unarmed public ... like me.

I don't think that police having surveillance drone capability necessarily entails us giving up any essential liberties. Insofar as the surveillance drones might, say, decrease gang or nefariously motivated activity, then I think that the drones would actually increase the liberty of law abiding citizens.

I was mostly just using the late-night walk as an example of a situation where one feels pressure from the government even though one is doing nothing wrong. If I could be observed unwittingly while in my backyard, then I would feel that pressure there. Maybe you wouldn't, but I know I would, and I know other people would. It's intimidation. Perhaps it's unintentional intimidation, but it would be intimidation nonetheless.

I'd also like to say that the feeling is definitely not *on* me, because I am doing nothing questionable. Here: I am against this idea of undetectable observation on similar grounds as to why it pisses me off that I might get watched "more closely" because I have long hair.

 

[nitsuj]

How does one balance this against privacy concerns though? I understand it can be taken too far in the other direction, hamstringing the police too much, but it can also be overdone in favor of the police too.

CAC1001, you got to define what is privacy. I can't think of much in my life that needs to be private.

The desire for privacy is easily turned on it's head, by people who don't feel a need for privacy beyond their bedroom/bathroom/doctors office ect.

This is not the same as spying of course. I don't want to be "spied" on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't think of much in my life that needs to be private.

Well, as LisaB says:

The excuse some people use, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you have a problem with being observed?", just nauseates me.

nitsuj, you should read Orwell's 1984. It was the tagline of the government. "If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?"

 

[russ_watters]

You are mistepresenting what nitsuj said, unless of course you both actually believe that the only purpose of privacy is to cover up bad behavior or that all governments are systemically abusive!

 

[DaveC426913]

You are mistepresenting what nitsuj said, unless of course you both actually believe that the only purpose of privacy is to cover up bad behavior or that all governments are systemically abusive!

I didn't think I was misrepresenting it, but I'm open to correction. It sounds like he's saying he doesn't see much need for privacy.

Personally, I do believe that there is a principle involved, that, I am entitled to exercise my right to privacy if I so choose. If I want to prevent authorities from seeing what I wear when sunning on my deck, then I should be able to do so. So, yes, I see a purpose for privacy, even if I'm not doing anything wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't think I was misrepresenting it, but I'm open to correction. It sounds like he's saying he doesn't see much need for privacy.

Yes. Why you think the Orwell quote has any relevance to that is something you will have to explain, but it sounds like you are saying that a person who sees little right to privacy must have the Orwell quote in mind as a basis. That's just plain wrong. As a person who also doesn't need much privacy, I still do need a little in the following areas:

1. Critical personal information (passwords, bank accounts, etc.).
2. Reasonable physical humility (that's also a matter of respect for others -- I'm not going to the supermarket naked).

That's really about it. The issue of covering up doing something wrong just doesn't enter my head. The corollary that since I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't need privacy doesn't either: My bank accounts are private not because I'm laundering money or otherwise committing fraud, but because I don't want it stolen.

Don't let the fact that virtually all privacy test-cases involve a person who was doing something wrong mislead you into thinking that hiding criminal activity is the only/primary/major issue for either side.

So, yes, I see a purpose for privacy, even if I'm not doing anything wrong.

As do I. But again, the fact that I see a much more limited purpose for privacy doesn't then mean that I buy into the Orwell quote. It is a complete strawman - no one in this thread has suggested that that be an operating principle governing privacy rights. Please trust me when I say this: despite the fact that virtually every privacy test case involves letting someone go free for a crime they committed, that doesn't mean that I believe that (or believe that you and your side believe) that covering up crimes is the only reason for privacy.

 

[nitsuj]

I threw "spying" in there to help define privacy.

I guess in the same sense that store security cameras are there for "historical record" not for "active monitoring".

Independence & freedom is a funny thing, and I wonder if particularly for the US this translates into privacy being thought of as similar to freedom, something to defend, somewhat of a right. Perhaps another "generation" difference. "Give up privacy & give up freedom." type of reasoning. As a very general statement, it seems US citizens are wary of giving their state power. I appreciate it truly is a trust thing, the state starts off as laissez faire and inevitably becomes more and more autocratic/liberal/"communist" as "trust" develops. (more precedence(s) than "trust")In addition the intent of more surveillance isn't at all to prosecute more frequently.

Without question, if it is the whole who agree to "give up" some privacy, it is for the purpose of "protecting" the whole. In other words, I wouldn't think it's to "actively monitor" and catch some individual breaking a road law, or some other "petty crime" that doesn't impact "the whole" in any sense. And not even remotely for revealing personal & private information to the authorities, or worse your neighbors!

In any case "for the greater good" should always prevail in a free country, it does in majority of them. I think I need an older persons perspective of why privacy is "sacred". The only reasons (less criminal acts) I can think of are;

1. Shame/embarrassment
2. Being exploited by a personal/private secrete, i.e. blackmail with regard to point 1., trade secretes & other capitalism/political related reasons.

Looks like vulnerability in some sense is the common denominator there.

Fear from the unknown then, ya'll will get comfortable with it, or change your fringe behaviors

Emotions hold zero weight in the face of "threats to the whole". ("threats to the whole" is too loose of a term, I am no policy writer)

imo This concept of surveillance already happens on the internet.

 

[Andre]

Obviously the need of privacy is very personal, depending on a lot of factors, are you introvert or extrovert, exhibitionistic or not? You want to be in the limelight or blend in with the background? You can't steer that. Some people get the creeps if they have the idea that they are being spied upon.

Problems only start to arise if you are on one side of the spectrum and you decide that everybody should be.

 

[nitsuj]

Andre those seem like emotive reasons for being private, and I don't think privacy in this sense is about how comfortable someone is in public / on television ect.

Personal feelings with regard to introverts/extroverts has no place in this kind of debate. It's far too subjective and "action-less".

"I can't go outside today, there is a drone in the sky and I'm a little to shy knowing it might look at me". Perhaps I'm just being ignorant.

Being "spied" on I feel is different from surveillance. Do you feel "spied" on when entering a bank or in particular a casino where you are actively monitored?

We have to only consider "what a reasonable person would ..." . I think it is unreasonable to feel uncomfortable due to surveillance. In particular if such surveillance is common place & well known.

Perhaps that being a key point, well known surveillance.I am the worst speller I know, in your tag It should be spelled Ottawa (sorry, I swear i only correct name misspellings, I couldn't careless about plain old words)

 

[Andre]

I was not complete enough, so it's my fault that you wasted so many words sorry.

It was supposed to complement what Lisa said.

True, in public places there are cameras, regular and plain clothes police, and other people around. We know we are being observed.

What I don't like about this: the drones observe people in areas where they have an expectation of privacy.

..

Are you saying a person has no expectation of privacy in your backyard? If so, I think you're wrong.

I don't know much about law, but the legal term for the backyard is "curtilage".

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

...
There have been several cases challenging what defines "curtilage" in specific instances, but how can one argue a person has no expectation of privacy in, say, a *fenced* yard on his own property?

Hence if you are in a public place, fine, if you are in a private place, no, at least not in a routine setting and without prior notice. And it should be understand that this is for preventing creeps etc. Making the means worse than the end. Of course you can make deals (agreed laws) when and where and under what conditions drone observation can be done.

 

[nitsuj]

Well the point is weak at best, if to suggest that surveillance is bad if people are under surveillance in an area where privacy is implied...i.e. entrapment.

Well duh, surveillance is not the same as spying, that's old ground that has plenty legal precedence.

And not at all a waste of words from my perspective. Putting these opinions of mine in writting, and re-reading / editing it helps me better understand my own opinion/position. However weird that is. Otherwise everything I write on here is a "waste of words". It surely isn't for your benefit, but is for mine. It's all take it or leave it...

 

[russ_watters]

Obviously the need of privacy is very personal...

Indeed. However, this is also a legal issue, so there needs to be objective, consistent standards for determining the legal ramifications of privacy issues. People are not entitled to just decide for themselves, based on their personal feelings, what the police can do.

 

[Andre]

Indeed. However, this is also a legal issue, so there needs to be objective, consistent standards for determining the legal ramifications of privacy issues.

Exactly...

Of course you can make deals (agreed laws) when and where and under what conditions drone observation can be done.

 

[Jasongreat]

What does it matter the semantics of "privacy"? The US used to be a nation that pushed the idea that only children need someone looking over their every move! As adults we don't need a babysitter, but that idea is long gone, everyone thinks they have the right to "correct" behaviour they don't agree with, not that its harmfull, only that it is "wrong"! Most laws lately seemed to be aimed at that purpose, which is anti-american, imo, in the least, anti- constitutional most likely, but who cares aslong as you the majority agrees! Nothing better than living in a mobocracy, imo!

 

[TheMadMonk]

I'd love to be interesting enough that I had to constantly worry about the Government spying on me, must be amazing to be so paranoid.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd love to be interesting enough that I had to constantly worry about the Government spying on me, must be amazing to be so paranoid.

Not caring can be very liberating.

 

[Jasongreat]

I reazlize cac was the original poster, but I thought op was in reference to the original post, as in the questions originally brought up. On my phone it won't let me reply to a post, so I tried to make it clear. We do have cameras, why does it matter if they are pervasive as other countries? I feel they are too pervasive for what I was taught were american ideals. Freedom and liberty don't coincide with someone looking over your shoulder at all times, atleast imo.

 

[Jasongreat]

And if the paranoid comment was directed at me, I am not paranoid, I live my life as I would like, whoever can watch if they want. Our federal government does not have the right to do so, unless you can get your mob to ammend the constitution though, imo.

 

[CAC1001]

In addition the intent of more surveillance isn't at all to prosecute more frequently.

Without question, if it is the whole who agree to "give up" some privacy, it is for the purpose of "protecting" the whole. In other words, I wouldn't think it's to "actively monitor" and catch some individual breaking a road law, or some other "petty crime" that doesn't impact "the whole" in any sense. And not even remotely for revealing personal & private information to the authorities, or worse your neighbors!

In any case "for the greater good" should always prevail in a free country, it does in majority of them.

I disagree here. That highly depends on just what the "greater good" is. A free society is all about protecting the rights of the individual. "For the greater good" is usually a collectivist form of thinking. You could infringe on people's individual rights in all manner of different ways in the name of the "greater good." "Greater good" is an arbitrary statement as well. Some could say allowing surveillance drones is in the interest of the greater good, others could say that it is in the interest of the greater good to not allow the surveillance drones.

I think I need an older persons perspective of why privacy is "sacred". The only reasons (less criminal acts) I can think of are;

1. Shame/embarrassment
2. Being exploited by a personal/private secrete, i.e. blackmail with regard to point 1., trade secretes & other capitalism/political related reasons.

Looks like vulnerability in some sense is the common denominator there.

Fear from the unknown then, ya'll will get comfortable with it, or change your fringe behaviors

Emotions hold zero weight in the face of "threats to the whole". ("threats to the whole" is too loose of a term, I am no policy writer)

imo This concept of surveillance already happens on the internet.

Privacy is sacred because it's a free society and you are supposed to be able to live your life in private, minus a few exceptions. You aren't supposed to have to justify to the government why you should be able to have privacy, the government should have to justify to the people why it should have certain powers to occassionally infringe on privacy. In a free society, you shouldn't have to justify to the government why you want to do anything, the government has to justify to the people why it should be able to put limits on certain freedoms here and there.

You are generally free to say whatever you want, minus a few exceptions. You are generally free to own any firearm and weapon you want, minus a few exceptions. You don't have to justify to the government why you should be allowed to say this or that or why you should be allowed to own this or that firearm. You don't have to justify why you should be allowed to borrow this or that book from the library.

 

[lisab]

And if the paranoid comment was directed at me, I am not paranoid, I live my life as I would like, whoever can watch if they want. Our federal government does not have the right to do so, unless you can get your mob to ammend the constitution though, imo.

Anyone can watch you? Interesting. In your own fenced yard? When you're with your significant other, maybe being affectionate? Can they film you? Film your kids?

I don't mean these questions to be confrontational, I just am curious about where the line is.

 

[ThomasT]

Surveillance drones would be used to monitor high crime areas and dangerous ongoing situations. This is a good thing, imho. All this stuff about the drones spying on people's back yard activities is just silly, imo. For one thing, there would never be enough drones to do that comprehensively. For another, even though US law enforcement individuals sometimes act in questionable ways, there's really no reason to believe that any level of government would use surveillance drones in a way that contradicts people's right to privacy.

My opinion is that surveillance drones won't affect people's privacy, and will help wrt the enforcement of the law.