7 ms·

It’s saddening but not surprising how much of this technology was developed for killing people abroad, and is now being used against US citizens. Deploying Pre

It’s saddening but not surprising how much of this technology was developed for killing people abroad, and is now being used against US citizens. Deploying Predator drones that can detect a face at 25kft from Afghanistan on US soil, without any meaningful regulation or political debate, is pretty terrifying.

moate 9y ago
Not trying to twist you words, just trying to understand your POV: was it more acceptable to you when it was being deployed to kill people in other countries?
- Sevii 9y ago
  Typical we are more comfortable with military tech being used far away in war zones than we are with it being used at home against US civilians. The presidents choosing not to formally declare war doesn’t change the layman view of our middle eastern combat activities.
  - e40 9y ago
    I'm guessing it's not the location but the use. Military = OK. Civilian != OK.
  - squarefoot 9y ago
    "Typical we are more comfortable with military tech being used far away in war zones than we are with it being used at home against US civilians." And drone usage is going to make it even worse. People isn't exposed anymore to the effects of being at war, so that the stronger side has no incentive to stop fighting. In the past people hated the war because of the high risk that loved ones could return in a coffin; nowadays only the enemies die, and at a convenient distance, so brainwashed masses don't develop hostility to the war but rather keep hating an enemy they have never met just because the TV says so. That's the first step to an endless state of war which is the best customer the weapon industry could dream about.
- jMyles 9y ago
  Can't speak for GP, but while I find the actual deployment of killing technology abhorrent no matter where it may occur, I think there's also additional bad faith to be seen in the pretext that these devices are initially about "national defense" (or some other similarly outdated platitude) but then are quickly introduced as a part of routine domestic law enforcement practice. We're led to believe that there is some wall of separation between these two, and the rapidity of adoption of this tech for domestic purposes reminds us quite clearly that that isn't so.
  - mitochondrion 9y ago
    What did you think they meant when they said "national security"? Obviously it was something like, "we are the nation and we need to secure ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic". Bend over for your ritual digital pat-down. Good citizen.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- confounded 9y ago
  You have my upvote. My point is not that Americans being surveilled is worse than Afghans being killed. It's that the disregard for the norms of liberal democracies (generally accepted during wars) seems to be bleeding into civilian life, and I worry that it points to an increasing authoritarian tendency in Western governments. It's terrifying to me in the same way that it's terrifying to see policemen dressed up as soldiers during civil unrest, waving assault rifles around and barking commands like they're invading their own country.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." James Madison, Constitutional Convention of 1787 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_629.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_629.asp

moate 9y ago

Not trying to twist you words, just trying to understand your POV: was it more acceptable to you when it was being deployed to kill people in other countries?

Sevii 9y ago
Typical we are more comfortable with military tech being used far away in war zones than we are with it being used at home against US civilians. The presidents choosing not to formally declare war doesn’t change the layman view of our middle eastern combat activities.
- e40 9y ago
  I'm guessing it's not the location but the use. Military = OK. Civilian != OK.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  "Typical we are more comfortable with military tech being used far away in war zones than we are with it being used at home against US civilians." And drone usage is going to make it even worse. People isn't exposed anymore to the effects of being at war, so that the stronger side has no incentive to stop fighting. In the past people hated the war because of the high risk that loved ones could return in a coffin; nowadays only the enemies die, and at a convenient distance, so brainwashed masses don't develop hostility to the war but rather keep hating an enemy they have never met just because the TV says so. That's the first step to an endless state of war which is the best customer the weapon industry could dream about.
jMyles 9y ago
Can't speak for GP, but while I find the actual deployment of killing technology abhorrent no matter where it may occur, I think there's also additional bad faith to be seen in the pretext that these devices are initially about "national defense" (or some other similarly outdated platitude) but then are quickly introduced as a part of routine domestic law enforcement practice. We're led to believe that there is some wall of separation between these two, and the rapidity of adoption of this tech for domestic purposes reminds us quite clearly that that isn't so.
- mitochondrion 9y ago
  What did you think they meant when they said "national security"? Obviously it was something like, "we are the nation and we need to secure ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic". Bend over for your ritual digital pat-down. Good citizen.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
confounded 9y ago
You have my upvote. My point is not that Americans being surveilled is worse than Afghans being killed. It's that the disregard for the norms of liberal democracies (generally accepted during wars) seems to be bleeding into civilian life, and I worry that it points to an increasing authoritarian tendency in Western governments. It's terrifying to me in the same way that it's terrifying to see policemen dressed up as soldiers during civil unrest, waving assault rifles around and barking commands like they're invading their own country.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." James Madison, Constitutional Convention of 1787 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_629.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_629.asp