6 ms·

Drones, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. I don't see a problem with the FBI using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveilla

by iguana 13y ago

Drones, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. I don't see a problem with the FBI using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance, so long as they do it within the confines of the law (and not some preposterous interpretation by a secret court). As long as a they have a specific warrant, this is just a clever application of technology, and a far cheaper alternative to a helicopter with crew. We already have traffic cameras and satellites, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors. Also, it isn't like these devices are able to pilot themselves, they're just remotely controlled aerial vehicles. What if the FBI put a video camera on a weather balloon?

smokeyj 13y ago
> Drones .. are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. The tools aren't evil, but our authoritarian corporatocracy might be.
- iguana 13y ago
  Don't ascribe malice to what can be adequately explained by righteous and shortsighted self-preservation.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    If the overly righteous and shortsighted preservation of a police state isn't evil, I don't know what is.
    - iguana 13y ago
      I highly doubt the motivation of the past and current administration are "evil". I highly doubt that Bush or Obama wanted a massive surveillance state and a "minority report" type of future. The problem is that righteous and shortsighted people are rarely aware of being shortsighted. They built an infrastructure of turnkey tyranny to protect us from what may very well be a real threat, and swear that there's a system of checks and balances to protect us not because they are "evil" but because they are righteous. Their righteousness blinds them to their shortsightedness. So, no, I still can't see them as evil. Just foolish.
      - derefr 13y ago
        Who is, by this definition, evil? You could probably call Hitler or anyone else "righteous and shortsighted, and thus not evil." It makes the word useless, because it no longer refers to anything that exists in reality (just in fairy tales.)
        iguana 13y ago
        I believe that evil only exists in fairy tales. There are better words to describe the immoral actions of others, including Hitler.
        derefr 13y ago
        But the evil in fairy tales is only the way it is because the characters who perpetrate it are purposefully one-dimensional, their motivations and justifications left unrevealed so as to not give the reader too much empathy for them. Even their evil, on level-headed scrutiny (ignoring the story narrator's attempt to sway you to one side of an us-vs-them debate with rhetoric), is "righteous and shortsighted." Which is to say--even their evil isn't "evil." And if you've reduced a word to signifying nothing at all, perhaps you're just trying to run away from allowing the things it does signify to be labelled? If the "evil" in fairy tales is, deep down, the same kind of justified, empathizable action that real people in our real world do every day, then why can't the thing the real people do also be called evil? I'm guessing that, after a few rounds of clarification, your real problem with the term might be its true definition: evil is basically a useful bit of meta-ethics jargon meaning "something that is subjectively offensive to the part of my utility function I assume my culture shares with me, as evidenced through mythos and communicated social norms." It's that "subjective" part that people get tripped up by--"evil" (and its opposite "good") are only defined given a utility function and a culture of empathizable peer-beings who share some part of that utility function. Without the utility function, you might have something unclipperific[1], but not something evil. Without the empathizable peers, it might be something you find personally offensive, but this feeling won't be shared to others via sympathetic anger (offense at losing in a fair competition, for example, feels like "rage", not like "observing an evil being perpetrated.") [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/fv3/by_which_it_may_be_judged/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/fv3/by_which_it_may_be_judged/
skwirl 13y ago
I agree with you, but the statement "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors" is interesting. If someone were to fence off their back yards with a high privacy fence, would they really have no reasonable expectation to, say, sunbathe in the nude without a drone (or helicopter for that matter) zooming in on them and snapping pictures? A quick search shows a lot of case law related to this (especially related to cases of people who were growing marijuana outside, unsurprisingly). But I didn't see a distilled answer.
- iguana 13y ago
  I've done a bit of googling on this myself, and all I can find is that evidence could be thrown out in a criminal case based entirely on aerial footage, but that is rarely the only evidence provided. You likely don't own the airspace above your property, certainly not above a thousand feet, and technically no one owns outer space, so I would say that in 2013 or beyond, your expectation of privacy in your back yard is likely to dwindle severely over time.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  If Google Maps used the image, they'd have to blur your sunbathing.
- dailyrorschach 13y ago
  In the US your backyard isn't necessarily considered to have an expectation to privacy. The principle in question is Curtilage, the relevant holding was United States v Dunn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage The fence argument is interesting, the factors they'd need to consider are outlined in the Wiki article. It's also why a professor of mine who was a lawyer told us in DC that if we ever got a MPD citation for drinking in public on our porch that he'd take the case for free, as he felt the law would clearly be unconstitutional - and said he'd have fun doing it.
adamnemecek 13y ago
Nuclear weapons, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. Ergo, there should be no restrictions on anything related to nuclear weapons.
- iguana 13y ago
  False equivalence and a slippery slope. How did you get from "big RC helicopter with video camera" to nuclear weapons?
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    Let's assume that it is slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between tools that are 'just tools' and tools that are not 'just tools'?
    - iguana 13y ago
      Inanimate objects can't be evil. Guns don't cause crime, cars don't cause accidents, and nuclear weapons don't kill people: their (usually) negligent operators do.
      - adamnemecek 13y ago
        Your argument is basically a straw-man argument/non-argument. No duh that inanimate objects can't be evil. Yet they can be used for evil purposes. And some are more likely to be used for evil purposes than others. How does that really make a difference?
        iguana 13y ago
        My point is that the focus must be on the operators of such devices, not the devices themselves. For example, the fact that Obama likes to use drones to take out American citizens (and I guess their children and cousins?) suspected of providing material support to terrorists should make us all angry because of the lack of due process, not that a fancy new technology is used.
joelrunyon 13y ago
> Also, it isn't like these devices are able to pilot themselves, If Google can figure out how to make a self-driving car, I think the government can (or has already) figure out a way to make self-flying drones.
- skeletonjelly 13y ago
  I think from watching all the videos of self navigating quadrocopters that do tricks I can safely assume that a lot of people (including the government) can
  - westward 13y ago
    The quadrocopters you're seeing on youtube generally have very specific navigation requirements that require lot of infrastructure and preparation in the area they're flying.
    - skeletonjelly 13y ago
      More so than drones I think. Internal flying vs external, the former has to deal with much more restrictions (physically) than the latter.
- iguana 13y ago
  We're talking about today's drone use by the FBI. They most certainly don't have fully autonomous drones. Sure, give them a decade or two and they'll have miniature, weaponized drones soon enough.
- andy9775 13y ago
  Yes and the self driving car is operated within some sort of legal framework and for the time being has a driver. The law may likely include, at least for sometime, a provision that forces a human eye on the road before we allow anyone to jump in and go. Ultimately it comes down to operating within a set legal framework and having the appropriate licences and paperwork(warrants) in place. So while drones may be self flying there needs to be someone responsible and it must be done so with reason.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Most people don't find it unreasonable to see the FBI using drones for surveillance as sparingly as Mueller claims in his testimony, it's later when they have something like a few thousand ARGUS-like platforms constantly surveying everything all of the time that makes it an egregious violation of privacy. Traffic cameras and license plate scanners are a prime example of the way law enforcement perceives its mandate to advance such things.

by iguana 13y ago

smokeyj 13y ago

> Drones .. are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. The tools aren't evil, but our authoritarian corporatocracy might be.

iguana 13y ago
Don't ascribe malice to what can be adequately explained by righteous and shortsighted self-preservation.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  If the overly righteous and shortsighted preservation of a police state isn't evil, I don't know what is.
  - iguana 13y ago
    I highly doubt the motivation of the past and current administration are "evil". I highly doubt that Bush or Obama wanted a massive surveillance state and a "minority report" type of future. The problem is that righteous and shortsighted people are rarely aware of being shortsighted. They built an infrastructure of turnkey tyranny to protect us from what may very well be a real threat, and swear that there's a system of checks and balances to protect us not because they are "evil" but because they are righteous. Their righteousness blinds them to their shortsightedness. So, no, I still can't see them as evil. Just foolish.
    - derefr 13y ago
      Who is, by this definition, evil? You could probably call Hitler or anyone else "righteous and shortsighted, and thus not evil." It makes the word useless, because it no longer refers to anything that exists in reality (just in fairy tales.)
      - iguana 13y ago
        I believe that evil only exists in fairy tales. There are better words to describe the immoral actions of others, including Hitler.
        derefr 13y ago
        But the evil in fairy tales is only the way it is because the characters who perpetrate it are purposefully one-dimensional, their motivations and justifications left unrevealed so as to not give the reader too much empathy for them. Even their evil, on level-headed scrutiny (ignoring the story narrator's attempt to sway you to one side of an us-vs-them debate with rhetoric), is "righteous and shortsighted." Which is to say--even their evil isn't "evil." And if you've reduced a word to signifying nothing at all, perhaps you're just trying to run away from allowing the things it does signify to be labelled? If the "evil" in fairy tales is, deep down, the same kind of justified, empathizable action that real people in our real world do every day, then why can't the thing the real people do also be called evil? I'm guessing that, after a few rounds of clarification, your real problem with the term might be its true definition: evil is basically a useful bit of meta-ethics jargon meaning "something that is subjectively offensive to the part of my utility function I assume my culture shares with me, as evidenced through mythos and communicated social norms." It's that "subjective" part that people get tripped up by--"evil" (and its opposite "good") are only defined given a utility function and a culture of empathizable peer-beings who share some part of that utility function. Without the utility function, you might have something unclipperific[1], but not something evil. Without the empathizable peers, it might be something you find personally offensive, but this feeling won't be shared to others via sympathetic anger (offense at losing in a fair competition, for example, feels like "rage", not like "observing an evil being perpetrated.") [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/fv3/by_which_it_may_be_judged/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/fv3/by_which_it_may_be_judged/

skwirl 13y ago

I agree with you, but the statement "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors" is interesting. If someone were to fence off their back yards with a high privacy fence, would they really have no reasonable expectation to, say, sunbathe in the nude without a drone (or helicopter for that matter) zooming in on them and snapping pictures? A quick search shows a lot of case law related to this (especially related to cases of people who were growing marijuana outside, unsurprisingly). But I didn't see a distilled answer.

iguana 13y ago
I've done a bit of googling on this myself, and all I can find is that evidence could be thrown out in a criminal case based entirely on aerial footage, but that is rarely the only evidence provided. You likely don't own the airspace above your property, certainly not above a thousand feet, and technically no one owns outer space, so I would say that in 2013 or beyond, your expectation of privacy in your back yard is likely to dwindle severely over time.
stephengillie 13y ago
If Google Maps used the image, they'd have to blur your sunbathing.
dailyrorschach 13y ago
In the US your backyard isn't necessarily considered to have an expectation to privacy. The principle in question is Curtilage, the relevant holding was United States v Dunn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage The fence argument is interesting, the factors they'd need to consider are outlined in the Wiki article. It's also why a professor of mine who was a lawyer told us in DC that if we ever got a MPD citation for drinking in public on our porch that he'd take the case for free, as he felt the law would clearly be unconstitutional - and said he'd have fun doing it.

adamnemecek 13y ago

Nuclear weapons, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. Ergo, there should be no restrictions on anything related to nuclear weapons.

iguana 13y ago
False equivalence and a slippery slope. How did you get from "big RC helicopter with video camera" to nuclear weapons?
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Let's assume that it is slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between tools that are 'just tools' and tools that are not 'just tools'?
  - iguana 13y ago
    Inanimate objects can't be evil. Guns don't cause crime, cars don't cause accidents, and nuclear weapons don't kill people: their (usually) negligent operators do.
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      Your argument is basically a straw-man argument/non-argument. No duh that inanimate objects can't be evil. Yet they can be used for evil purposes. And some are more likely to be used for evil purposes than others. How does that really make a difference?
      - iguana 13y ago
        My point is that the focus must be on the operators of such devices, not the devices themselves. For example, the fact that Obama likes to use drones to take out American citizens (and I guess their children and cousins?) suspected of providing material support to terrorists should make us all angry because of the lack of due process, not that a fancy new technology is used.

joelrunyon 13y ago

> Also, it isn't like these devices are able to pilot themselves, If Google can figure out how to make a self-driving car, I think the government can (or has already) figure out a way to make self-flying drones.

skeletonjelly 13y ago
I think from watching all the videos of self navigating quadrocopters that do tricks I can safely assume that a lot of people (including the government) can
- westward 13y ago
  The quadrocopters you're seeing on youtube generally have very specific navigation requirements that require lot of infrastructure and preparation in the area they're flying.
  - skeletonjelly 13y ago
    More so than drones I think. Internal flying vs external, the former has to deal with much more restrictions (physically) than the latter.
iguana 13y ago
We're talking about today's drone use by the FBI. They most certainly don't have fully autonomous drones. Sure, give them a decade or two and they'll have miniature, weaponized drones soon enough.
andy9775 13y ago
Yes and the self driving car is operated within some sort of legal framework and for the time being has a driver. The law may likely include, at least for sometime, a provision that forces a human eye on the road before we allow anyone to jump in and go. Ultimately it comes down to operating within a set legal framework and having the appropriate licences and paperwork(warrants) in place. So while drones may be self flying there needs to be someone responsible and it must be done so with reason.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Most people don't find it unreasonable to see the FBI using drones for surveillance as sparingly as Mueller claims in his testimony, it's later when they have something like a few thousand ARGUS-like platforms constantly surveying everything all of the time that makes it an egregious violation of privacy. Traffic cameras and license plate scanners are a prime example of the way law enforcement perceives its mandate to advance such things.