5 ms·

> "Sometimes, new technology changes so rapidly that existing law no longer fit what people think are appropriate," Stanley said. Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue r

> "Sometimes, new technology changes so rapidly that existing law no longer fit what people think are appropriate," Stanley said. Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of applicable law. Believing that a new law is needed because computers/drones/robots/AI/whatever now exist can lead to bad laws, or laws that are out-of-balance in terms of punishment. (i.e., commit a crime - 5 years. commit the same crime WITH A COMPUTER - 10 years) > "It's important to remember that the American people do find this to be a very, very sensitive topic." I think the media finds this to be an eyeball-grabbing topic, but AFAICT, the American people do not care much about it.

fosco 11y ago
I like your communication here. I would love to explore this in a separate discussion at first glance I would say certain crimes are not possible at magnitude without a computer or technology to assist. With extreme simplification I consider computers to be a tool to increase productivity. With that said, I will agree, the same exact crime in type and magnitude should have the same punishment, not altered.
privong 11y ago
> Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of applicable law. I think the important distinction is police vs millitary, not drone vs satellite vs helicopter. As @protomyth pointed out, there is existing law (Posse Comitatus Act) which may prohibit such things. The article does say that the drone flights were done in accordance with existing laws. But, given the propensity for the FBI to flaunt laws and mislead the public about doing so, I'm not sure how much I trust that statement in the article. > Believing that a new law is needed because computers/drones/robots/AI/whatever now exist can lead to bad laws, or laws that are out-of-balance in terms of punishment. (i.e., commit a crime - 5 years. commit the same crime WITH A COMPUTER - 10 years) I agree with this. I don't think new laws should necessarily be specifically created for this. At any rate, it seems like the Posse Comitatus Act should cover this already.
merpnderp 11y ago
Using the military against US citizens is such a horrendous thought, that it's explicitly outlawed. And those drones are easily armed, so if you want a comparison, this isn't like a manned helicopter. It's like a manned Apache helicopter, that just happens to not have a complement of Hellfire and 70mm rockets, patrolling the US skies. People would freak out if they looked up and saw that doing law enforcement duties.
- freeone3000 11y ago
  You mean like the https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg M113s used by sheriffs?
  - pc86 11y ago
    There is a difference between a military operation on US soil and civilian law enforcement using military hardware.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      There's a difference in who pulls the trigger. Anything else?
      - walshemj 11y ago
        A lot more training and stricter rules of engagement - personally id prefer seal team 6 for dealing with a mass shooting incident ala Paris rather than which ever Podunk police swat team happens to be local.
  - ohitsdom 11y ago
    And Americans have been extremely upset over the militarization of our police (much of which gained public exposure after Ferguson). Obama talked about it fairly regularly since then, going so far as to ban sales. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama-police-military-equipment-sales-new-jersey/27521793/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama...
benologist 11y ago
Laws, and democracy, should be evolving just like we do because our ancestors - 100s of years ago, even 10s of years ago - simply did not come up with timeless solutions to much stuff any more than the people who wrote the bible did a couple thousand years before them. Some of the things we once defined as just we now consider to be heinous human rights violations that only occur in the worst corners of the world - slavery, inequality etc. Some laws are commonly considered out of date and failing today's society - drugs, mass-incarceration, copyright, patents, marriage.

fosco 11y ago

I like your communication here. I would love to explore this in a separate discussion at first glance I would say certain crimes are not possible at magnitude without a computer or technology to assist. With extreme simplification I consider computers to be a tool to increase productivity. With that said, I will agree, the same exact crime in type and magnitude should have the same punishment, not altered.

privong 11y ago

> Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of applicable law. I think the important distinction is police vs millitary, not drone vs satellite vs helicopter. As @protomyth pointed out, there is existing law (Posse Comitatus Act) which may prohibit such things. The article does say that the drone flights were done in accordance with existing laws. But, given the propensity for the FBI to flaunt laws and mislead the public about doing so, I'm not sure how much I trust that statement in the article. > Believing that a new law is needed because computers/drones/robots/AI/whatever now exist can lead to bad laws, or laws that are out-of-balance in terms of punishment. (i.e., commit a crime - 5 years. commit the same crime WITH A COMPUTER - 10 years) I agree with this. I don't think new laws should necessarily be specifically created for this. At any rate, it seems like the Posse Comitatus Act should cover this already.

merpnderp 11y ago

Using the military against US citizens is such a horrendous thought, that it's explicitly outlawed. And those drones are easily armed, so if you want a comparison, this isn't like a manned helicopter. It's like a manned Apache helicopter, that just happens to not have a complement of Hellfire and 70mm rockets, patrolling the US skies. People would freak out if they looked up and saw that doing law enforcement duties.

freeone3000 11y ago
You mean like the https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg M113s used by sheriffs?
- pc86 11y ago
  There is a difference between a military operation on US soil and civilian law enforcement using military hardware.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    There's a difference in who pulls the trigger. Anything else?
    - walshemj 11y ago
      A lot more training and stricter rules of engagement - personally id prefer seal team 6 for dealing with a mass shooting incident ala Paris rather than which ever Podunk police swat team happens to be local.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  And Americans have been extremely upset over the militarization of our police (much of which gained public exposure after Ferguson). Obama talked about it fairly regularly since then, going so far as to ban sales. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama-police-military-equipment-sales-new-jersey/27521793/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/obama...

benologist 11y ago

Laws, and democracy, should be evolving just like we do because our ancestors - 100s of years ago, even 10s of years ago - simply did not come up with timeless solutions to much stuff any more than the people who wrote the bible did a couple thousand years before them. Some of the things we once defined as just we now consider to be heinous human rights violations that only occur in the worst corners of the world - slavery, inequality etc. Some laws are commonly considered out of date and failing today's society - drugs, mass-incarceration, copyright, patents, marriage.