4 ms·

It's shameful that (a) it took a freedom of information request to make this information public. (b) the Pentagon did it's own internal report and found that

by beau26 11y ago

It's shameful that (a) it took a freedom of information request to make this information public. (b) the Pentagon did it's own internal report and found that there was no wrongdoing. (c) that nobody in the government is going to hold these clowns responsible or create any sort of legitimate process for determining whether these flights were legal or not.

jngreenlee 11y ago
Look I don't love these ether, but: "A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no legal violations were found" "the Pentagon established interim guidance in 2006 governing when and whether the unmanned aircraft could be used domestically. The interim policy allowed spy drones to be used for homeland defense purposes in the U.S. and to assist civil authorities."
- olivermarks 11y ago
  If you believe that you'll believe anything...
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    The ACLU doesn't tend to toe the government's line. In general, them saying "looks legit" is a pretty good sign.
- gr3yh47 11y ago
  >and to assist civil authorities. disgusting how broad that is, almost anything could be under that umbrella
  - VLM 11y ago
    There's could be, which is of course anything, and is known to be, which AFAIK is only JSOC aka the folks in charge of seal team 6 and delta force, lately of the drone attacks in the middle east, etc. The Sec Defense can make available for "expert advice" and "training" and stuff like that, and that's what JSOC operates under. AFAIK they're the only army command running under those rules on a continuous basis. Note that the Army does bust active duty MPs for doing things off base. Another rarely understood part of the Posse Comitatus act is a state governor can do anything he wants inside his own state with NG / ANG troops. Its only when they're federalized or operating outside their state that they can't enforce laws. NG troops can "pretty much" do anything their governor orders them to do within their state borders. The active, reserve, and guard components are at least sometimes deeply intermeshed. Would not surprise me for a guard pilot to casually be called an "army dude" by a journalist with no military experience (aka all of them)
- newman314 11y ago
  That's something that really sets me off; the hiding behind the umbrella of "well, that's legal" Just because something is legal or some twisted definition thereof (eg waterboarding is not torture) does not mean that it's right. And for people of power to hide behind the guise of legality is so often not sufficiently called out and deterred.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Waterboarding is considered torture.
    - TillE 11y ago
      Not according to John Yoo.
      - jonathankoren 11y ago
        Ahh Berkeley. The city cares about making a stand about nonexistent space based nuclear weapons, but when there's a war criminal among their midsts...
  - unchocked 11y ago
    Sure, but it's hard to make the case that using aerial surveillance to assist in lawful arrest operations is "not right". Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern. To which branch of government it belongs may be of ethical concern, but I think such concern is better described as "legalistic".
    - newman314 11y ago
      So at a micro level, this may seem like a good idea. I believe we need considering such activities in a larger context. For example, there have been multiple laws passed/proposed in various countries because "think of the children" or "terrorism". The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 and passed in a hurry. To the point, where the original architect of the act now regrets his actions [1]. Or the fact that the act is now overwhelming used for prosecuting drug activities instead of its original intended purpose [2]. > "Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern" I would disagree with this statement. It's the difference between a police stakeout and them planting a webcam [3]. I repeatedly stress at work to people involved with big data projects that want to advance the notion of a data lake. "Just because we can does not mean that we should". I'm not convinced that the legal route is sufficient to check such activity and is why I'm a proponent of systems that prevent bad actors from intercepting (zero knowledge?) instead of "we promise not to look" solutions. I'll end with: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." [1] http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-with-eu-parliam http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-w... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/... [3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na...

by beau26 11y ago

jngreenlee 11y ago

Look I don't love these ether, but: "A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no legal violations were found" "the Pentagon established interim guidance in 2006 governing when and whether the unmanned aircraft could be used domestically. The interim policy allowed spy drones to be used for homeland defense purposes in the U.S. and to assist civil authorities."

olivermarks 11y ago
If you believe that you'll believe anything...
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  The ACLU doesn't tend to toe the government's line. In general, them saying "looks legit" is a pretty good sign.
gr3yh47 11y ago
>and to assist civil authorities. disgusting how broad that is, almost anything could be under that umbrella
- VLM 11y ago
  There's could be, which is of course anything, and is known to be, which AFAIK is only JSOC aka the folks in charge of seal team 6 and delta force, lately of the drone attacks in the middle east, etc. The Sec Defense can make available for "expert advice" and "training" and stuff like that, and that's what JSOC operates under. AFAIK they're the only army command running under those rules on a continuous basis. Note that the Army does bust active duty MPs for doing things off base. Another rarely understood part of the Posse Comitatus act is a state governor can do anything he wants inside his own state with NG / ANG troops. Its only when they're federalized or operating outside their state that they can't enforce laws. NG troops can "pretty much" do anything their governor orders them to do within their state borders. The active, reserve, and guard components are at least sometimes deeply intermeshed. Would not surprise me for a guard pilot to casually be called an "army dude" by a journalist with no military experience (aka all of them)
newman314 11y ago
That's something that really sets me off; the hiding behind the umbrella of "well, that's legal" Just because something is legal or some twisted definition thereof (eg waterboarding is not torture) does not mean that it's right. And for people of power to hide behind the guise of legality is so often not sufficiently called out and deterred.
- Retric 11y ago
  Waterboarding is considered torture.
  - TillE 11y ago
    Not according to John Yoo.
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      Ahh Berkeley. The city cares about making a stand about nonexistent space based nuclear weapons, but when there's a war criminal among their midsts...
- unchocked 11y ago
  Sure, but it's hard to make the case that using aerial surveillance to assist in lawful arrest operations is "not right". Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern. To which branch of government it belongs may be of ethical concern, but I think such concern is better described as "legalistic".
  - newman314 11y ago
    So at a micro level, this may seem like a good idea. I believe we need considering such activities in a larger context. For example, there have been multiple laws passed/proposed in various countries because "think of the children" or "terrorism". The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 and passed in a hurry. To the point, where the original architect of the act now regrets his actions [1]. Or the fact that the act is now overwhelming used for prosecuting drug activities instead of its original intended purpose [2]. > "Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern" I would disagree with this statement. It's the difference between a police stakeout and them planting a webcam [3]. I repeatedly stress at work to people involved with big data projects that want to advance the notion of a data lake. "Just because we can does not mean that we should". I'm not convinced that the legal route is sufficient to check such activity and is why I'm a proponent of systems that prevent bad actors from intercepting (zero knowledge?) instead of "we promise not to look" solutions. I'll end with: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." [1] http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-with-eu-parliam http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-w... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/... [3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na...