5 ms·

I don't really see the issue here with a surveillance drone to help keep the peace. I don't really care if it's "military technology" or not. Look, what happene

I don't really see the issue here with a surveillance drone to help keep the peace. I don't really care if it's "military technology" or not. Look, what happened was absolutely awful. People have a right to protest - and should, but peacefully. Riots, looting, burning buildings? Sorry, that's going to far. If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.

petee 6y ago
Well this is what we get for not listening. If your family and friends were being executed constantly you'd give up and rage too. Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored. Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- king_magic 6y ago
  There are folks who are legitimately angry and are expressing that peacefully. And then there are people torching businesses, police stations and cars. Do you not think there is any sort of reasonable line being crossed here? I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation? This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area. Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.
  - petee 6y ago
    No, they are being murdered, how would you respond? We can't possibly understand the anger these people feel. If an innocent man is murdered by police, and they riot as a result, we need to start listening. As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too. Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.
    - king_magic 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but I don't think the solution is to immediately reach for a Molotov cocktail and firebomb a Target. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't. Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
      - daeken 6y ago
        > Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) "[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." ETA: > Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target. What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505 https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505 Who are we to make that call, in either direction?
- tathougies 6y ago
  > Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored. There was a republican protest over COVID where there was mass theft, looting, and arson?
  - CryptoBanker 6y ago
    Armed white men stormed Michigan's state Capitol if you don't remember. The only reason there was no violence is because the police were ordered to stand down. See the difference?
    - tathougies 6y ago
      Stormed the capitol? You mean entered the capitol building -- as is your right as a citizen? Having a gun is not violence. And, while police can certainly instigate violence, I find it difficult to believe that someone had to steal a TV from target or loot the apple store (as happened in portland) because the police instigated them to.
- ls612 6y ago
  If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say. They don’t seem interested in reasoning, only in taking what they want by force. The armed protesters in Michigan were being jackasses but afaik they didn’t start looting or committing arson (or even hurt anyone for that matter). There is no equivalence here, it’s just as much a bullshit “both sides” argument as the one trump made three years ago.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Well, obviously that's not a reasonable first reaction, but if all the reasonable avenues of getting people's grievances addressed have not succeeded, then it's kind of inevitable that it will escalate to unreasonable responses.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    > If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say. They were saying “don’t kill me”. This argument is blatantly racist.
  - CryptoBanker 6y ago
    For many white people that "good reason" not to listen is simply that they are poor and black. You ignore the innate institutional racism and assume the everyone can have a civil conversation. Some people just want to hate
  - detaro 6y ago
    A large number of the same people that now are saying that of course peaceful protest would have been enough and been respected (including high-ranking members of the current US administration) were insulting, ignoring, or calling for punishment for people that did peaceful protests in the past, e.g. by kneeling at football matches. What was the "good reason" to not listen then?
daeken 6y ago
> Downvote me into oblivion (like I see some folks already are - classy) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
- king_magic 6y ago
  Fair, fixed.
a3n 6y ago
Do you have any issue with reporting the fact of and details of the surveillance?
- king_magic 6y ago
  Apply that same question to every other type of police surveillance. Why is this materially different?
  - a3n 6y ago
    It both is and is not different. It's different because of the obvious riots. But it's not different in the long: we should be aware of mass surveillance, because it can affect freedom of association (chilling), and can advance government abuse. Citizens should always watch the government, so that we have a chance to rein them in. Its our government, not the other way around.
kec 6y ago
Predator drones can carry multiple air to ground missiles and guided bombs. This is the same model of drone which is used for drone strikes in the Middle East. There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.
- king_magic 6y ago
  I'm aware of that, but it's extremely, extremely unlikely that this drone is carrying any sort of missiles. I can't prove that for certain, but let's be realistic here. The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    That’s a false equivalence. The difference with your truck argument is that this air vehicle is specifically designed to monitor and shoot missiles at targets (“extrajudicial killings” is the phrase used). A truck carrying a missile launcher is different because trucks weren’t created will the express purpose of carrying missile launchers.
    - king_magic 6y ago
      Except there's simply no way (short of the US falling into a total dystopian future) that someone is going to launch a missile on the Mall of America this week from this drone. Again - let's be realistic here.
  - codys 6y ago
    > should we not allow trucks on the road? Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles. Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.
  - kec 6y ago
colejohnson66 6y ago
Others have mentioned the air-to-ground missile problem, but my question is: “what does CBP have to do with this?” Border Patrol’s job is to, unsurprisingly, patrol the border, as in, the national border. Even with the “100 mile zone”, Minneapolis is more than 200 miles inland.
- petee 6y ago
  Which is a great point, a lot of their jurisdiction is supposed to end 100 miles in, so what surveillance rights do they have to the interior?
  - dathinab 6y ago
    My guess is that the drone is owned by the border patrol but currently used/controlled by a different agency. Like the national guard or police. I.e. border patrol lend it to them. But this still shows how broken this is because now you have a drone survilence by some agency but people don't know which one and maybe a violation of responsibilities if it's actually operated by the border protection...
- outworlder 6y ago
  Well, are there any international airports in a 100 mile radius of Minneapolis?
Thriptic 6y ago
The issue is there is no transparency about what is happening with the data that is being collected.
- king_magic 6y ago
  Would it be any different if it was a police helicopter manned with a guy with a video camera?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Yes, because a police helicopter is different for two reasons: (1) it’s not operated by CBP (who have no jurisdiction here), and (2) a police helicopter doesn’t have Hellfire missile bays.
    - king_magic 6y ago
      Putting aside the CBP issue (fair point, agreed, that's weird), it's not like police helicopters haven't been used for pretty bad things in the past - e.g. when Philadelphia firebombed it's citizens in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
      - morsch 6y ago
        Such a weird way of putting police reaper drones into context.
  - Thriptic 6y ago
    Well, first I can almost guarantee that the surveillance tech being employed on a predator drone is substantially more advanced and wide ranging than a simple human operated video camera, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have guys with video cameras in helicopters recording protests either unless it's to film illegality. It has a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Peaceful protesters really shouldn't be getting surveiled / data gathered during protests shouldn't be getting mined, and unless authorities can guarantee that isn't happening then recording makes me uncomfortable.

petee 6y ago

Well this is what we get for not listening. If your family and friends were being executed constantly you'd give up and rage too. Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored. Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
king_magic 6y ago
There are folks who are legitimately angry and are expressing that peacefully. And then there are people torching businesses, police stations and cars. Do you not think there is any sort of reasonable line being crossed here? I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation? This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area. Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.
- petee 6y ago
  No, they are being murdered, how would you respond? We can't possibly understand the anger these people feel. If an innocent man is murdered by police, and they riot as a result, we need to start listening. As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too. Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.
  - king_magic 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but I don't think the solution is to immediately reach for a Molotov cocktail and firebomb a Target. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't. Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
    - daeken 6y ago
      > Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau) "[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." ETA: > Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target. What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505 https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505 Who are we to make that call, in either direction?
tathougies 6y ago
> Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored. There was a republican protest over COVID where there was mass theft, looting, and arson?
- CryptoBanker 6y ago
  Armed white men stormed Michigan's state Capitol if you don't remember. The only reason there was no violence is because the police were ordered to stand down. See the difference?
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Stormed the capitol? You mean entered the capitol building -- as is your right as a citizen? Having a gun is not violence. And, while police can certainly instigate violence, I find it difficult to believe that someone had to steal a TV from target or loot the apple store (as happened in portland) because the police instigated them to.
ls612 6y ago
If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say. They don’t seem interested in reasoning, only in taking what they want by force. The armed protesters in Michigan were being jackasses but afaik they didn’t start looting or committing arson (or even hurt anyone for that matter). There is no equivalence here, it’s just as much a bullshit “both sides” argument as the one trump made three years ago.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Well, obviously that's not a reasonable first reaction, but if all the reasonable avenues of getting people's grievances addressed have not succeeded, then it's kind of inevitable that it will escalate to unreasonable responses.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  > If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say. They were saying “don’t kill me”. This argument is blatantly racist.
- CryptoBanker 6y ago
  For many white people that "good reason" not to listen is simply that they are poor and black. You ignore the innate institutional racism and assume the everyone can have a civil conversation. Some people just want to hate
- detaro 6y ago
  A large number of the same people that now are saying that of course peaceful protest would have been enough and been respected (including high-ranking members of the current US administration) were insulting, ignoring, or calling for punishment for people that did peaceful protests in the past, e.g. by kneeling at football matches. What was the "good reason" to not listen then?

daeken 6y ago

> Downvote me into oblivion (like I see some folks already are - classy) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

king_magic 6y ago
Fair, fixed.

a3n 6y ago

Do you have any issue with reporting the fact of and details of the surveillance?

king_magic 6y ago
Apply that same question to every other type of police surveillance. Why is this materially different?
- a3n 6y ago
  It both is and is not different. It's different because of the obvious riots. But it's not different in the long: we should be aware of mass surveillance, because it can affect freedom of association (chilling), and can advance government abuse. Citizens should always watch the government, so that we have a chance to rein them in. Its our government, not the other way around.

kec 6y ago

Predator drones can carry multiple air to ground missiles and guided bombs. This is the same model of drone which is used for drone strikes in the Middle East. There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.

king_magic 6y ago
I'm aware of that, but it's extremely, extremely unlikely that this drone is carrying any sort of missiles. I can't prove that for certain, but let's be realistic here. The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  That’s a false equivalence. The difference with your truck argument is that this air vehicle is specifically designed to monitor and shoot missiles at targets (“extrajudicial killings” is the phrase used). A truck carrying a missile launcher is different because trucks weren’t created will the express purpose of carrying missile launchers.
  - king_magic 6y ago
    Except there's simply no way (short of the US falling into a total dystopian future) that someone is going to launch a missile on the Mall of America this week from this drone. Again - let's be realistic here.
- codys 6y ago
  > should we not allow trucks on the road? Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles. Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.
- kec 6y ago

colejohnson66 6y ago

Others have mentioned the air-to-ground missile problem, but my question is: “what does CBP have to do with this?” Border Patrol’s job is to, unsurprisingly, patrol the border, as in, the national border. Even with the “100 mile zone”, Minneapolis is more than 200 miles inland.

petee 6y ago
Which is a great point, a lot of their jurisdiction is supposed to end 100 miles in, so what surveillance rights do they have to the interior?
- dathinab 6y ago
  My guess is that the drone is owned by the border patrol but currently used/controlled by a different agency. Like the national guard or police. I.e. border patrol lend it to them. But this still shows how broken this is because now you have a drone survilence by some agency but people don't know which one and maybe a violation of responsibilities if it's actually operated by the border protection...
outworlder 6y ago
Well, are there any international airports in a 100 mile radius of Minneapolis?

Thriptic 6y ago

The issue is there is no transparency about what is happening with the data that is being collected.

king_magic 6y ago
Would it be any different if it was a police helicopter manned with a guy with a video camera?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Yes, because a police helicopter is different for two reasons: (1) it’s not operated by CBP (who have no jurisdiction here), and (2) a police helicopter doesn’t have Hellfire missile bays.
  - king_magic 6y ago
    Putting aside the CBP issue (fair point, agreed, that's weird), it's not like police helicopters haven't been used for pretty bad things in the past - e.g. when Philadelphia firebombed it's citizens in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
    - morsch 6y ago
      Such a weird way of putting police reaper drones into context.
- Thriptic 6y ago
  Well, first I can almost guarantee that the surveillance tech being employed on a predator drone is substantially more advanced and wide ranging than a simple human operated video camera, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have guys with video cameras in helicopters recording protests either unless it's to film illegality. It has a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Peaceful protesters really shouldn't be getting surveiled / data gathered during protests shouldn't be getting mined, and unless authorities can guarantee that isn't happening then recording makes me uncomfortable.