5 ms·

I don't want civilian police forces using military equipment for any reason. It's really that simple. Rand Paul gets it.

by maratd 14y ago

tzs 14y ago
Drones are no more military equipment than are guns, cars, and radios. All of those are equipment that is used both by civilians and by the military.
- maratd 14y ago
  If your local police force started chasing after people using tanks, then well, tanks would no longer be military equipment. Military equipment is any equipment that is predominantly used by the military and not so much by anybody else. Drones are primarily used by the military. They are military equipment. If they start getting used by local police forces left and right, well, they would no longer be military equipment. And that would be unfortunate.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    "Drone" is just a colloquialism for "unmanned aircraft". "Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms". So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell: There is a nationwide problem of police forces using tanks as part of SWAT operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is a real problem and worth talking about. But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military. There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling. You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let this point go.
    - Retric 14y ago
      SWAT (special weapons and tactics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT is specifically a group of police officers trained to use military weapons and tactics. They do use APC's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier) but don't use 'tanks' because they don't fight people in armored vehicles. PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces (aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares to a howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 which is designed to be far enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to protect it's crew.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Then please allow civilian use of drones as well. Without any restrictions. And let us send drones to track governors, senators, public figures, to see how they feel about being watched.
shrikant 14y ago
Good thing they don't use the Internet or GPS then.
- maratd 14y ago
  It's unfortunate that they do and I would support Mr Paul if he tried to stop that as well. The FBI is actively working on lobbying for backdoors into every major communications service, including the social networks. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-backdoors/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-... They are also using GPS to spy on random people of interest without warrants. http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/253374/3000-warrantless-fbi-gps-trackers-ordered-supreme-court http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/253374/3000-war...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    As the first sentence of that GPS link points out, the practice of using GPS trackers as a substitute for human agents following cars (which obviously doesn't require a warrant) was halted by the Supreme Court, which stated that the FBI needs a warrant to attach a GPS device to someone's car, not that they are forbidden from using GPS.
    - defen 14y ago
      GPS tracking was struck down on extremely narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the police do not have the right to trespass upon your vehicle (attach a GPS tracker). They deliberately did not rule upon the rightness or wrongness of tracking someone's public travel without a warrant. Since there will be no physical trespass when airborne drones are tracking our cars, that Supreme Court ruling isn't really relevant. In my opinion, tracking someone automatically (either via GPS or drone), as opposed to having an actual person follow them, is sufficiently different in terms of cost that it becomes a qualitatively different phenomenon.
    - droithomme 14y ago
      And from the description of the bill: > The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens. It doesn't ban drones. It bans their use for police surveillance without a warrant based on probable cause. A lot of people seem to be confused about this issue.
rprasad 14y ago
So you are opposed to police using bulletproof vests, GPS (in their cars, not to track people), and the internet (including websites for their agencies)? Almost all of the equipment used by police today was once military equipment. Some of it still is.
tsotha 14y ago
How are drones different than the helicopters police forces already use?
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Cheaper. Can be mass-produced. Autonomous. No need for permanent man-operation. It lowers the technical barrier for surveillance of a large population significantly. Therefore, that's what we call a groundbreaking technology. that's what's different. "How is the Internet fundamentally different than the telegraph? " "How is a ITBM different from artillery?" "How is the car different from a carriage?" You can use that kind of question for every technological advances. Obviously every major step changes behaviors significantly.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    I meant "how are drones different from a legal perspective?"
    - maratd 14y ago
      They're not. That's why we're talking about passing a law that makes them different.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        So why not pass a law forbidding police departments from using helicopters?
        maratd 14y ago
        Because helicopters are already widely used, drones are not. Yet. Because a helicopter costs millions of dollars. A drone doesn't. A helicopter must be flown by a person. Drones can be automated. Are you starting to get the picture? 1 helicopter = 100 drones. Go read 1981 by Orwell. You'll begin to understand the concept of something being Orwellian.
mjwalshe 14y ago
um so why do American Police need hand guns with more powerful rounds than SF Operators (Delta, DEvGuru the SAS etc) do them. I bet Bonnie and Clyde wish that the Police where banned from having "Milatery weapons" as it was the full auto BAR's that did for them back in the 30's

I don't want civilian police forces using military equipment for any reason. It's really that simple. Rand Paul gets it.

by maratd 14y ago

I don't want civilian police forces using military equipment for any reason. It's really that simple. Rand Paul gets it.

tzs 14y ago

Drones are no more military equipment than are guns, cars, and radios. All of those are equipment that is used both by civilians and by the military.

maratd 14y ago
If your local police force started chasing after people using tanks, then well, tanks would no longer be military equipment. Military equipment is any equipment that is predominantly used by the military and not so much by anybody else. Drones are primarily used by the military. They are military equipment. If they start getting used by local police forces left and right, well, they would no longer be military equipment. And that would be unfortunate.
- tptacek 14y ago
  "Drone" is just a colloquialism for "unmanned aircraft". "Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms". So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell: There is a nationwide problem of police forces using tanks as part of SWAT operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is a real problem and worth talking about. But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military. There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling. You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let this point go.
  - Retric 14y ago
    SWAT (special weapons and tactics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT is specifically a group of police officers trained to use military weapons and tactics. They do use APC's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier) but don't use 'tanks' because they don't fight people in armored vehicles. PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces (aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares to a howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 which is designed to be far enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to protect it's crew.
ekianjo 14y ago
Then please allow civilian use of drones as well. Without any restrictions. And let us send drones to track governors, senators, public figures, to see how they feel about being watched.

shrikant 14y ago

Good thing they don't use the Internet or GPS then.

maratd 14y ago
It's unfortunate that they do and I would support Mr Paul if he tried to stop that as well. The FBI is actively working on lobbying for backdoors into every major communications service, including the social networks. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-backdoors/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-... They are also using GPS to spy on random people of interest without warrants. http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/253374/3000-warrantless-fbi-gps-trackers-ordered-supreme-court http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/253374/3000-war...
- tptacek 14y ago
  As the first sentence of that GPS link points out, the practice of using GPS trackers as a substitute for human agents following cars (which obviously doesn't require a warrant) was halted by the Supreme Court, which stated that the FBI needs a warrant to attach a GPS device to someone's car, not that they are forbidden from using GPS.
  - defen 14y ago
    GPS tracking was struck down on extremely narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the police do not have the right to trespass upon your vehicle (attach a GPS tracker). They deliberately did not rule upon the rightness or wrongness of tracking someone's public travel without a warrant. Since there will be no physical trespass when airborne drones are tracking our cars, that Supreme Court ruling isn't really relevant. In my opinion, tracking someone automatically (either via GPS or drone), as opposed to having an actual person follow them, is sufficiently different in terms of cost that it becomes a qualitatively different phenomenon.
  - droithomme 14y ago
    And from the description of the bill: > The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens. It doesn't ban drones. It bans their use for police surveillance without a warrant based on probable cause. A lot of people seem to be confused about this issue.

rprasad 14y ago

So you are opposed to police using bulletproof vests, GPS (in their cars, not to track people), and the internet (including websites for their agencies)? Almost all of the equipment used by police today was once military equipment. Some of it still is.

tsotha 14y ago

How are drones different than the helicopters police forces already use?

ekianjo 14y ago
Cheaper. Can be mass-produced. Autonomous. No need for permanent man-operation. It lowers the technical barrier for surveillance of a large population significantly. Therefore, that's what we call a groundbreaking technology. that's what's different. "How is the Internet fundamentally different than the telegraph? " "How is a ITBM different from artillery?" "How is the car different from a carriage?" You can use that kind of question for every technological advances. Obviously every major step changes behaviors significantly.
- tsotha 14y ago
  I meant "how are drones different from a legal perspective?"
  - maratd 14y ago
    They're not. That's why we're talking about passing a law that makes them different.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      So why not pass a law forbidding police departments from using helicopters?
      - maratd 14y ago
        Because helicopters are already widely used, drones are not. Yet. Because a helicopter costs millions of dollars. A drone doesn't. A helicopter must be flown by a person. Drones can be automated. Are you starting to get the picture? 1 helicopter = 100 drones. Go read 1981 by Orwell. You'll begin to understand the concept of something being Orwellian.

mjwalshe 14y ago

um so why do American Police need hand guns with more powerful rounds than SF Operators (Delta, DEvGuru the SAS etc) do them. I bet Bonnie and Clyde wish that the Police where banned from having "Milatery weapons" as it was the full auto BAR's that did for them back in the 30's