Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

  • News
  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date
  • #76
1,352
90
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #77
russ_watters
Mentor
19,875
6,296
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.
 
  • #78
4,465
72
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.
 
  • #79
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!
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
russ_watters
Mentor
19,875
6,296
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.
 
  • #82
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.
 
  • #83
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.
 
  • #84
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 :smile:

Emotions hold zero weight in the face of "threats to the whole". ("threats to the whole" is too loose of a term, im 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.
 
  • #85
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
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.
 
  • #86
472
0
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.
 

Related Threads on Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
6K
Top