6 ms·

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."

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.
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      It's easier to prevent it from getting there than it is to stop it once it has. It's more economical to expend the effort now than wait. If drones are physically visible I worry that an "implied consent" will develop and the issue becomes unwinnable.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    So the line is in fact one of scale? I agree, if the FBI had anything even remotely close to pervasive surveillance, we'd have a problem. But we'd have a problem no matter how they did it. The article says they used drones maybe once a year. That's probably less than the LAPD uses one of their helicopter in a week.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Helianthus 13y ago
  You generally seem pretty sharp, but your viewpoint here (and elsewhere) seems to be me to be (to use your occasional bluntness) simple contrarian idiocy. What you say is true but irrelevant. More than that, if you paid attention to the actual issue at hand instead of performing, I dunno, some basic cost-efficiency exercise, you'd see that "Manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive" is a source of pressure in the system. Manned aircraft are increasingly flown largely by machine. The recent San Francisco crash may have been prevented if a computer had been more active (if not in full control). Cost-efficiency might indicate we should push for such a thing, but we're comforted by the thought of a man at the helm. Why's that? Because that means a man has oversight of the automatic system. But we're going to want our planes to be fully automated at some point. So a drone flown by a man elsewhere may well be replaced by a drone flown by a drone elsewhere. And cost-efficiency means that there can be a great many of these drones in play. --- All of this would be fine if it were an earnest conversation about the role of government in society. This is not the case. The rule of law is being violated and it is an affront. Now I'm not exhorting you to share my viewpoint. I'm quite honestly just contemptuous of what I see as your waffling grey in a situation that is increasingly black and white.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    10 incidents since 2006. The rule of law? Where does the law say that planes must be manned? I don't buy the idea that we should be hamstringing the government just for the sake of doing that; I think you have to point to an actual abuse of the program to make a case against it. Also: at no point in this or any other thread did I choose to make an argument by calling you a name. Perhaps you could extend everyone else that same courtesy.
    - Helianthus 13y ago
      As I said, contemptuous. Edit: I mean, c'mon. 2006 only stirs the pot further. >> In June, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency uses drones to spy on US citizens without any “operational guidelines.”
      - 13y ago
- timsally 13y ago
  Is your point here that past techniques are far more expensive and therefore the use of drones is an improvement? I'm a little unclear here, but that's what I'm getting. Applying Alito's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment (and everyone who joined with him in the Jones concurrence), the fact that manned aircraft are probability expensive make them fundamentally different than a much cheaper technology. The idea is a reasonable person knows manned aircraft are super expensive and thus law enforcement will only use them in certain situations. Because of this, such activity is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, according to Alito, this does not mean that the search is still considered reasonable when the same activity becomes much cheaper. Indeed, he held that extremely lengthy tailing of a vehicle on public roads with a cheap GPS device constituted a search while the _same_ activity done manually by law enforcement did not constitute a search. For what it's worth, I think the FBI's use of drones here is fine. I'm one of the last people on HN who would ever jump on this surveillance bandwagon/train wreck we are seeing. I bring this up because four Supreme Court justices believe that the cost of an activity can determine whether it constitutes a search (yes, it is not settled law). Because of this, drones being cheaper isn't actually an argument for them being ok. The correct argument here is that drones are cheaper, but still probability expensive to deploy en-mass against the public. If drones ever become cheap enough to do that (like the GPS device in Jones), then it's a whole different ballgame.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I totally believe that a universal (or even regional-scale) persistent drone surveillance program would be something for which specific checks and balances, applied at the level of standard Article III courts (or, for that matter, state courts, since this technology is going to ubiquitous 20 years from now), would be warranted. The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.
    - timsally 13y ago
      I suspect we are on the same page in regards to the constitutional issues and the problem(s) with this article. I personally find the massive suspension of common sense in our community about these types of issues quite irritating. I just wanted to point out that cost seemed to be used by you as an argument in favor of the use of drones by law enforcement, when according to four Supreme Court justices in certain cases lower cost can make it unconstitutional without first getting a warrant. Neither I or you believe that is the case with drones at this present time, but I think it's important to mention in these conversations that costs do matter (i.e. cheaper is not always better). My purpose here is not to nitpick. It's just that I'd bet that these issues will permeate Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the future and I think people who are part of this "anti-surveillance" camp should know what they're yelling about.
- vidarh 13y ago
  While these cases don't sound bad, this argument is. Manned aircraft are large and obvious, and as you say they are prohibitively expensive, naturally limiting the extent of their use. Drones can be expected to continue to get smaller and smaller and less noticeable. They can also be expected to become cheaper and easier to deploy in larger numbers than manned aircraft. In general, the barrier to monitoring by obvious means ought to be lower, as if it is generally going to be noticed, it can be challenged - whether in person or through the courts. And high costs of manned aircraft also creates a natural barrier that makes excessive surveillance of this type less likely and so less problematic. The less obvious monitoring becomes, and the easier to becomes to employ en masse, the more oversight it needs because the resulting abuse potential is substantially higher.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I agree insofar as I think this is a discussion we need to be having. I don't think it makes sense to be freaking out over 10 instances of drone surveillance in the course of years, in the same way that it does make sense to be freaking out (to some degree) over the NSA leaks. Thus far, in practice, there has not been a difference between drones and other, presently legitimate, surveillance.
  - tzs 13y ago
    > Manned aircraft are large and obvious [...] They are not necessarily obvious. With a gyro stabilized camera, you can use very high magnification and still track a target. Here's article about this technology and what it can do: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/30/entertainment/et-cineflex30 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/30/entertainment/et-cin... They can get detailed images from two miles away. It would be pretty hard in most city environments to notice that a helicopter two miles away is following you. That covers enough area that the helicopter could fly patterns that make it look like it is doing some kind of survey or training or something innocuous, so that even if you notice it, it would not seem suspicious.
anigbrowl 13y ago
It's not crossing lines. Would you get angry if an FBI agent got into a plane and flew around looking for clues to some crime (eg tyre tracks)? Doubtful. But they put up a remote control plane and you're yelping that the rule of law means nothing to anyone who disagrees. The law is stands does not require a warrant for aerial surveillance. It seems to be you who dislike the rule of law.
rgbrenner 13y ago
"My conclusion reading your paragraph is that the rule of law means nothing to you." Your comment really seems to be a reaction to the NSA issue.. and on that I'm with you 100%.. but... US police forces and the FBI regularly fly helicopters -- without a warrant. How is this any different? You make it remote controlled and suddenly it becomes completely different? You'll have to explain that one to me.. because I really don't get it.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Making it remote control could make it easier to do en masse. With only 10 incidents, that's obviously not happening at this point, but it'd be something to keep an eye on.
diminoten 13y ago
Crazy idea: if you don't want to be surveilled while doing something, don't do it in public or in the view of the public.

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.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    It's easier to prevent it from getting there than it is to stop it once it has. It's more economical to expend the effort now than wait. If drones are physically visible I worry that an "implied consent" will develop and the issue becomes unwinnable.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  So the line is in fact one of scale? I agree, if the FBI had anything even remotely close to pervasive surveillance, we'd have a problem. But we'd have a problem no matter how they did it. The article says they used drones maybe once a year. That's probably less than the LAPD uses one of their helicopter in a week.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Helianthus 13y ago
You generally seem pretty sharp, but your viewpoint here (and elsewhere) seems to be me to be (to use your occasional bluntness) simple contrarian idiocy. What you say is true but irrelevant. More than that, if you paid attention to the actual issue at hand instead of performing, I dunno, some basic cost-efficiency exercise, you'd see that "Manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive" is a source of pressure in the system. Manned aircraft are increasingly flown largely by machine. The recent San Francisco crash may have been prevented if a computer had been more active (if not in full control). Cost-efficiency might indicate we should push for such a thing, but we're comforted by the thought of a man at the helm. Why's that? Because that means a man has oversight of the automatic system. But we're going to want our planes to be fully automated at some point. So a drone flown by a man elsewhere may well be replaced by a drone flown by a drone elsewhere. And cost-efficiency means that there can be a great many of these drones in play. --- All of this would be fine if it were an earnest conversation about the role of government in society. This is not the case. The rule of law is being violated and it is an affront. Now I'm not exhorting you to share my viewpoint. I'm quite honestly just contemptuous of what I see as your waffling grey in a situation that is increasingly black and white.
- tptacek 13y ago
  10 incidents since 2006. The rule of law? Where does the law say that planes must be manned? I don't buy the idea that we should be hamstringing the government just for the sake of doing that; I think you have to point to an actual abuse of the program to make a case against it. Also: at no point in this or any other thread did I choose to make an argument by calling you a name. Perhaps you could extend everyone else that same courtesy.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    As I said, contemptuous. Edit: I mean, c'mon. 2006 only stirs the pot further. >> In June, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency uses drones to spy on US citizens without any “operational guidelines.”
    - 13y ago
timsally 13y ago
Is your point here that past techniques are far more expensive and therefore the use of drones is an improvement? I'm a little unclear here, but that's what I'm getting. Applying Alito's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment (and everyone who joined with him in the Jones concurrence), the fact that manned aircraft are probability expensive make them fundamentally different than a much cheaper technology. The idea is a reasonable person knows manned aircraft are super expensive and thus law enforcement will only use them in certain situations. Because of this, such activity is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, according to Alito, this does not mean that the search is still considered reasonable when the same activity becomes much cheaper. Indeed, he held that extremely lengthy tailing of a vehicle on public roads with a cheap GPS device constituted a search while the _same_ activity done manually by law enforcement did not constitute a search. For what it's worth, I think the FBI's use of drones here is fine. I'm one of the last people on HN who would ever jump on this surveillance bandwagon/train wreck we are seeing. I bring this up because four Supreme Court justices believe that the cost of an activity can determine whether it constitutes a search (yes, it is not settled law). Because of this, drones being cheaper isn't actually an argument for them being ok. The correct argument here is that drones are cheaper, but still probability expensive to deploy en-mass against the public. If drones ever become cheap enough to do that (like the GPS device in Jones), then it's a whole different ballgame.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I totally believe that a universal (or even regional-scale) persistent drone surveillance program would be something for which specific checks and balances, applied at the level of standard Article III courts (or, for that matter, state courts, since this technology is going to ubiquitous 20 years from now), would be warranted. The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.
  - timsally 13y ago
    I suspect we are on the same page in regards to the constitutional issues and the problem(s) with this article. I personally find the massive suspension of common sense in our community about these types of issues quite irritating. I just wanted to point out that cost seemed to be used by you as an argument in favor of the use of drones by law enforcement, when according to four Supreme Court justices in certain cases lower cost can make it unconstitutional without first getting a warrant. Neither I or you believe that is the case with drones at this present time, but I think it's important to mention in these conversations that costs do matter (i.e. cheaper is not always better). My purpose here is not to nitpick. It's just that I'd bet that these issues will permeate Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the future and I think people who are part of this "anti-surveillance" camp should know what they're yelling about.
vidarh 13y ago
While these cases don't sound bad, this argument is. Manned aircraft are large and obvious, and as you say they are prohibitively expensive, naturally limiting the extent of their use. Drones can be expected to continue to get smaller and smaller and less noticeable. They can also be expected to become cheaper and easier to deploy in larger numbers than manned aircraft. In general, the barrier to monitoring by obvious means ought to be lower, as if it is generally going to be noticed, it can be challenged - whether in person or through the courts. And high costs of manned aircraft also creates a natural barrier that makes excessive surveillance of this type less likely and so less problematic. The less obvious monitoring becomes, and the easier to becomes to employ en masse, the more oversight it needs because the resulting abuse potential is substantially higher.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I agree insofar as I think this is a discussion we need to be having. I don't think it makes sense to be freaking out over 10 instances of drone surveillance in the course of years, in the same way that it does make sense to be freaking out (to some degree) over the NSA leaks. Thus far, in practice, there has not been a difference between drones and other, presently legitimate, surveillance.
- tzs 13y ago
  > Manned aircraft are large and obvious [...] They are not necessarily obvious. With a gyro stabilized camera, you can use very high magnification and still track a target. Here's article about this technology and what it can do: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/30/entertainment/et-cineflex30 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/30/entertainment/et-cin... They can get detailed images from two miles away. It would be pretty hard in most city environments to notice that a helicopter two miles away is following you. That covers enough area that the helicopter could fly patterns that make it look like it is doing some kind of survey or training or something innocuous, so that even if you notice it, it would not seem suspicious.

anigbrowl 13y ago

It's not crossing lines. Would you get angry if an FBI agent got into a plane and flew around looking for clues to some crime (eg tyre tracks)? Doubtful. But they put up a remote control plane and you're yelping that the rule of law means nothing to anyone who disagrees. The law is stands does not require a warrant for aerial surveillance. It seems to be you who dislike the rule of law.

rgbrenner 13y ago

"My conclusion reading your paragraph is that the rule of law means nothing to you." Your comment really seems to be a reaction to the NSA issue.. and on that I'm with you 100%.. but... US police forces and the FBI regularly fly helicopters -- without a warrant. How is this any different? You make it remote controlled and suddenly it becomes completely different? You'll have to explain that one to me.. because I really don't get it.

dllthomas 13y ago
Making it remote control could make it easier to do en masse. With only 10 incidents, that's obviously not happening at this point, but it'd be something to keep an eye on.

diminoten 13y ago

Crazy idea: if you don't want to be surveilled while doing something, don't do it in public or in the view of the public.