6 ms·

Did any of you actually read the article? Despite the sensationalist title, they're only admitting to 10 incidents since 2006 including one where a young boy's

Did any of you actually read the article? Despite the sensationalist title, they're only admitting to 10 incidents since 2006 including one where a young boy's life was possibly on the line. I'm as anti-spying as anybody, but ~1 incident per year seems like a reasonable rate to me if a serious threat is motivating it. This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky.

northwest 13y ago
> This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky. Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? I certainly do. And I see a pattern here: a) it's an evolution, and b) they are doing all this behind our backs (without the promised transparency) If we had a website where every such incident would be published and precisely detailed and justified, the situation would already be slightly different, b/c then, we would have an eye on it, every single day.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I don't. Can you provide a link? That seems like profoundly dumb public policy to me: no domestic use for unmanned aircraft?
- lotso 13y ago
  > Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? No, I don't.
- fargolime 13y ago
  > Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? It was drone strikes. I'm confident that's coming against the domestic population, with concomitant "oops, we didn't mean to hit the playground" events.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Right, because the government drops bombs from manned aircraft in the domestic theater all the time.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Or snipers people from tall buildings all the time.
      - tootie 13y ago
        There are literally tens of thousands of armed government agents on the streets of every municipality of America and have been for hundreds of years.
    - moo 13y ago
      The Police dropped a bomb on the MOVE movement house, which also killed children, in Philadelphia.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Yes, I'm well aware of that. That happened in 1985. So, one example from the last thirty years. One. To me, that says it is not, in fact, a big problem and we probably shouldn't lose much sleep over it, if any.
Helianthus 13y ago
I am filled with such angry frustration about the current situation that all I want to do is lash out at you. "It's ok. It's ok because it seems reasonable." It is crossing lines. It is governmental activity that the citizenry does not know about, does not consent to, and here you are going "Well, it was for a good reason I guess." My conclusion reading your paragraph is that the rule of law means nothing to you.
- tptacek 13y ago
  What line are they crossing? They used manned aircraft for all sorts of things, and have for decades. Manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    The same line between wiretapping in the analog age and wiretapping now: impossible to use on a mass, routine, and suspicion-less basis.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Is that what happened? It doesn't sound like it is.
    - fragsworth 13y ago
      This is true - drones become as big of a problem as wiretapping, once they're mass-produced and flying all over the place. They could conceivably track everyone's movements. However, at the moment, this is overly expensive and kind of far-fetched, so most people aren't aware of the long-term implications. 30-40 years from now, though?
    - jurassic 13y ago
      > mass, routine, and suspicion-less basis. That is not at all how drones are being used according to this article. Until then, plant some trees in your yard and keep calm. There are enough real transgressions going on that we don't need to whip ourselves into a frenzy over hyped stories like this one.
oleganza 13y ago
The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. If you dislike what any group of people are doing: 1. They are typically funding themselves. 2. You can boycott them peacefully. Not pay them, discourage others from paying them, ostracize people who you disagree with etc. Without violence, absolutely voluntarily. (Everyone does that every day on the market by choosing what to buy and where to go and what NOT to buy and where NOT to go.) So with the government it's a different story. You, for instance, not against drones. That's fine, I will not advocate any violent action against you. But if I am against drones, I cannot withdraw my participation. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, or try to use alternative currency (to bypass inflation) where it's not "allowed". So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. And that's the real source of anger. They can do all the talking, but cannot vote their money out of what they dislike.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. You don't have a right to initiate violence. It has not been monopolized by government; citizens have chosen, through law, to pool a part of their soveriegnty in government to fulfill certain ends, such as the creation of a police force. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, No he won't, he'll send you a polite letter and if you're intransigent he may garnish your wages or bank account or real property. So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. Apart from voting, writing books, testifying on capital hill, enacting ballot measures, running for office, and all the other stuff you choose to ignore. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: government is not a monolithic entity, it's a bunch of people who are in large part simply representing the aggregate views of other people. It didn't land in a spaceship and impose itself on a bunch of free humans, we institute these things ourselves to advance our mutual interests.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Ohhhhhhhhhhh. OK, I get it. So the law is irrelevant as long as everyone is acting in good faith and a good outcome occurs. Wow, that's really useful. It's a shame it doesn't apply to subjects, errrr, citizens.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  Which law did they break?
  - lotso 13y ago
    None. "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of proof. There was no majority opinion, and no support by a majority of justices for the sweeping conclusion you draw from it.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        What sweeping conclusion? That no law was broken? That's hardly a sweeping conclusion, considering that's exactly what happened.
      - lotso 13y ago
        Honestly curious, but the "sweeping conclusion" I'm drawing is either that this i legal. According to this ruling (regardless of the fact that there was no majority opinion), am is it true that what the FBI is doing is legal?
  - logn 13y ago
znowi 13y ago
This seemingly innocuous attitude has brought us to where we are now :)
obstacle1 13y ago
So out the window with the rule of law as long as a 'serious threat' is motivating an action? Out of curiosity, under what other circumstances do you think suspension of the rule of law is a-okay? If a serious threat, how about this: get a warrant. It should be easy, because there's an objectively serious threat. Novel idea, right? >I'm as anti-spying as anybody No you aren't, as evidenced by your comment here. This is the "I'm not racist, but _insert_racist_sentiment_here_" line of thinking.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  What rules of law was broken with regard to the incidents in the article? As has been stated elsewhere, none. > get a warrant A warrant is not needed to watch someone in public.
ojbyrne 13y ago
Remember that the government has PR people too. Everything is going to be presented in the best possible light. The "think of the children" case is the one they're willing to release details on - why do you think that is? Perhaps they chose "late 2006" because earlier in 2006 there were many more, or more egregious cases. "National security cases" is also a nice vague catchall that could encompass everything from Occupy to a single person crossing the border illegally.
RodericDay 13y ago
It's really weird how the top response to most links critical of the NSA or the american security apparatus is some defense of the whole thing. I wonder if the "hacker" community values being contrarian that much more than the truth, or whether there's deliberate vote stuffing going on.
jlgaddis 13y ago
> ... they're only admitting to 10 incidents ... Emphasis added. > This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky. It's a good start, though, isn't it?

northwest 13y ago

> This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky. Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? I certainly do. And I see a pattern here: a) it's an evolution, and b) they are doing all this behind our backs (without the promised transparency) If we had a website where every such incident would be published and precisely detailed and justified, the situation would already be slightly different, b/c then, we would have an eye on it, every single day.

tptacek 13y ago
I don't. Can you provide a link? That seems like profoundly dumb public policy to me: no domestic use for unmanned aircraft?
lotso 13y ago
> Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? No, I don't.
fargolime 13y ago
> Do you remember the day they said that drones would never be used against the population, but only for military targets? It was drone strikes. I'm confident that's coming against the domestic population, with concomitant "oops, we didn't mean to hit the playground" events.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Right, because the government drops bombs from manned aircraft in the domestic theater all the time.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Or snipers people from tall buildings all the time.
    - tootie 13y ago
      There are literally tens of thousands of armed government agents on the streets of every municipality of America and have been for hundreds of years.
  - moo 13y ago
    The Police dropped a bomb on the MOVE movement house, which also killed children, in Philadelphia.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Yes, I'm well aware of that. That happened in 1985. So, one example from the last thirty years. One. To me, that says it is not, in fact, a big problem and we probably shouldn't lose much sleep over it, if any.

Helianthus 13y ago

I am filled with such angry frustration about the current situation that all I want to do is lash out at you. "It's ok. It's ok because it seems reasonable." It is crossing lines. It is governmental activity that the citizenry does not know about, does not consent to, and here you are going "Well, it was for a good reason I guess." My conclusion reading your paragraph is that the rule of law means nothing to you.

tptacek 13y ago
What line are they crossing? They used manned aircraft for all sorts of things, and have for decades. Manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  The same line between wiretapping in the analog age and wiretapping now: impossible to use on a mass, routine, and suspicion-less basis.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Is that what happened? It doesn't sound like it is.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    This is true - drones become as big of a problem as wiretapping, once they're mass-produced and flying all over the place. They could conceivably track everyone's movements. However, at the moment, this is overly expensive and kind of far-fetched, so most people aren't aware of the long-term implications. 30-40 years from now, though?
  - jurassic 13y ago
    > mass, routine, and suspicion-less basis. That is not at all how drones are being used according to this article. Until then, plant some trees in your yard and keep calm. There are enough real transgressions going on that we don't need to whip ourselves into a frenzy over hyped stories like this one.

oleganza 13y ago

The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. If you dislike what any group of people are doing: 1. They are typically funding themselves. 2. You can boycott them peacefully. Not pay them, discourage others from paying them, ostracize people who you disagree with etc. Without violence, absolutely voluntarily. (Everyone does that every day on the market by choosing what to buy and where to go and what NOT to buy and where NOT to go.) So with the government it's a different story. You, for instance, not against drones. That's fine, I will not advocate any violent action against you. But if I am against drones, I cannot withdraw my participation. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, or try to use alternative currency (to bypass inflation) where it's not "allowed". So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. And that's the real source of anger. They can do all the talking, but cannot vote their money out of what they dislike.

anigbrowl 13y ago
The real problem is not with drones, or spying. It's the monopoly of violence that people think is okay. Government = violent agency that achieves any of its goals using threats with a gun. Taxation, regulations and border controls - all of it is a gun pointed at you if you disobey. Government does not have a 'monopoly of violence.' You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself if attacked by a criminal, for example. You don't have a right to initiate violence. It has not been monopolized by government; citizens have chosen, through law, to pool a part of their soveriegnty in government to fulfill certain ends, such as the creation of a police force. Taxman will point a gun at my face if I refuse to pay taxes, No he won't, he'll send you a polite letter and if you're intransigent he may garnish your wages or bank account or real property. So people who dislike some gov activity cannot do anything about it. Apart from voting, writing books, testifying on capital hill, enacting ballot measures, running for office, and all the other stuff you choose to ignore. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: government is not a monolithic entity, it's a bunch of people who are in large part simply representing the aggregate views of other people. It didn't land in a spaceship and impose itself on a bunch of free humans, we institute these things ourselves to advance our mutual interests.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. OK, I get it. So the law is irrelevant as long as everyone is acting in good faith and a good outcome occurs. Wow, that's really useful. It's a shame it doesn't apply to subjects, errrr, citizens.

cpncrunch 13y ago
Which law did they break?
- lotso 13y ago
  None. "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of proof. There was no majority opinion, and no support by a majority of justices for the sweeping conclusion you draw from it.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      What sweeping conclusion? That no law was broken? That's hardly a sweeping conclusion, considering that's exactly what happened.
    - lotso 13y ago
      Honestly curious, but the "sweeping conclusion" I'm drawing is either that this i legal. According to this ruling (regardless of the fact that there was no majority opinion), am is it true that what the FBI is doing is legal?
- logn 13y ago

znowi 13y ago

This seemingly innocuous attitude has brought us to where we are now :)

obstacle1 13y ago

So out the window with the rule of law as long as a 'serious threat' is motivating an action? Out of curiosity, under what other circumstances do you think suspension of the rule of law is a-okay? If a serious threat, how about this: get a warrant. It should be easy, because there's an objectively serious threat. Novel idea, right? >I'm as anti-spying as anybody No you aren't, as evidenced by your comment here. This is the "I'm not racist, but _insert_racist_sentiment_here_" line of thinking.

jasonlotito 13y ago
What rules of law was broken with regard to the incidents in the article? As has been stated elsewhere, none. > get a warrant A warrant is not needed to watch someone in public.

ojbyrne 13y ago

Remember that the government has PR people too. Everything is going to be presented in the best possible light. The "think of the children" case is the one they're willing to release details on - why do you think that is? Perhaps they chose "late 2006" because earlier in 2006 there were many more, or more egregious cases. "National security cases" is also a nice vague catchall that could encompass everything from Occupy to a single person crossing the border illegally.

RodericDay 13y ago

It's really weird how the top response to most links critical of the NSA or the american security apparatus is some defense of the whole thing. I wonder if the "hacker" community values being contrarian that much more than the truth, or whether there's deliberate vote stuffing going on.

jlgaddis 13y ago

> ... they're only admitting to 10 incidents ... Emphasis added. > This is a far cry from pervasive Big Brother in the sky. It's a good start, though, isn't it?