4 ms·
This sounds quite wonderful --- for the open battlefield. I quite support the use of anything humane that can reasonably improve our soldiers' intel on the grou
by sukuriant 14y ago
This sounds quite wonderful --- for the open battlefield. I quite support the use of anything humane that can reasonably improve our soldiers' intel on the ground, as intelligence is everything in a war.
That said. I am terrified of the thought that this could be used against a country's own denizens, be it by the police, or by the military actively seeking out targets of their own. Furthermore, while this is being developed by a country that is actually quite high on the freedom and anticorruption graphs, what happens when either those countries become more of a dictatorship; or, more likely to happen soon, countries that very clearly violate human rights, or generally oppress their people get a hold of them?
It's sad that, when looking at a technology, you have to look at both, "Wow! This is incredible! We'll lose fewer lives on the battlefield, and our soldiers will come safe because we can avoid traps, etc!" as well as "... someday, these are going to be acceptable to point at our own people, in the interest of something that doesn't deserve such invasion of ... everything." Countries are not God, and it's scary when they start trying to recklessly wield such omniscience. I know I couldn't trust myself knowing all that these drones could offer. I'm not sure I could trust many, if anyone, with such knowledge.
- pekk 14y agoI am really not sure why the inevitable conclusion is that the US will direct every bad technology against its own citizens. Does it not occur to anyone that they might be at least as likely to be attacked by non-governmental groups?
- jamieb 14y agoMore US Citizens have been killed by the Federal Government than by any other organized group. The military has been involved with strike breaking [1]. The military was used to suppress the southern states from seceding from the union. [2] Say what you want about the horrors of slavery, but the southern states had the right to secede and were suppressed militarily. More recently, the President has suspended the 4th amendment, and, quite relevant to this article, authorized murder of US Citizens using drones. These are facts. There's no leaping to conclusions here. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Union_busting_with_military_force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_se...
- pekk 14y agoFlying the Confederate flag isn't really an argument.
- jbattle 14y agoI'm not sure the civil war is a good argument. If they seceded lawfully, they weren't citizens. If they weren't lawfully seceding, they were traitors/insurrectionists. In arms no less. More germane might be the experiments at Oak Ridge.
- sukuriant 14y agoThere's also a "Who is watching the watchers" mentality. Am I terribly concerned about the US Military using this tech? Not really, no. Am I concerned about the local police force infringing on my privacy by using these tools without a warrant, or worse, claiming that they shouldn't need a warrant before they use micro-spy drones? Yes. With the proper checks and balances in place, by all means, use powerful spy tools to track someone, but only that someone, etc.
- pekk 14y agoI find it strange that nobody is concerned about militia groups, particularly when related groups have already demonstrated capabilities to (for example) carry out bombing attacks. Or I would find it strange, if it were not so obvious that the agenda in focusing on the government is to advantage people like those militia groups