4 ms·

You made the Godwin leap that the GP avoided, and putting words in another's mouth like that is an unfortunate way of polarizing discussion. They shouldn't fly

by rmxt 11y ago

You made the Godwin leap that the GP avoided, and putting words in another's mouth like that is an unfortunate way of polarizing discussion. They shouldn't fly an airplane over their jurisdiction without an express specific intent (e.g., hot criminal pursuit of an individual or individuals) because "gathering intelligence" is not their purpose. Are they in a warzone? Are their taxpaying funders now somehow their subjugated and subservient peoples? Why patrol the area as such? "Intelligence" appears nowhere in the Public Laws of Baltimore that set out the Police Department's purpose (starting on pg. 73 of the PDF linked below). http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20Codes/ChrtrPLL/02%20-%20PLL.pdf http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20C...

diminoten 11y ago
You actually think it's possible to perform police activity as outlined in the Public Laws of Baltimore without executing intelligence operations? How would you know when Bad Things are happening? Are you recommending they exclusively perform reactive services?
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Unstated assumption: that these "intelligence operations" are both legally permitted, and that even if they are, that they prevent enough crime to justify their existence. Not sure either of those things are true.
- rmxt 11y ago
  I stand fast by the notion that they shouldn't be performing general "intelligence operations", nor should they be recruiting the FBI to so on their behalf. They should be proactively fighting crime, but that doesn't need to (and legally shouldn't) entail wholesale monitoring of everyone in their jurisdiction (and then some, judging by the range of the drones and the involvement of the FBI). Do you actually think that the Baltimore PD has a cogent sense of probable cause and articuable suspicion for everyone that this device is collecting information on? If not, then this thing has no place being in the sky. This is unnecessary dragnet surveillance so that "boys can play with their toys", not proactive crime fighting with good purpose.
  - diminoten2 11y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but it's not "unnecessary dragnet surveillance" to fly a drone over a hot zone in a city during a period of riots to monitor the state of the area, nor should the employees of companies who offer such services to these police departments "be ashamed".
    - rmxt 11y ago
      What is a "hot zone"? People obstructing traffic and breaking a few windows merits recording the location of every cell phone (basically every person over the age of 10) for an extended period of time? That's textbook "unnecessary dragnet surveillance". EDIT: How do you separate out: 1. People in the streets participating in marches. (maybe articuable suspicion) 2. People in the streets not participating in marches. (ipso facto no articuable suspicion) 3. People in their homes with their cell phones on. (ipso facto no articuable suspicion)
      - diminoten2 11y ago
        Do you see no difference between recording the location of every cell phone and taking video from the air of city streets?
        rmxt 11y ago
        I am not sure I understand your question. I do see a difference, and that's exactly what I'm pointing out. Video cameras cannot see into homes and they require their attention to be focused on a particular area. Video cameras' very nature forces them to be used in a more selective fashion. The same cannot be said for these hypothetical Stingray laden drones. Hence, they shouldn't be available for use for general "population control," which is what the use in Baltimore amounts to.
        diminoten2 11y ago
        In the hypothetical situation where these drones were taking recorded video of publicly accessible areas of Baltimore ("the streets", so to speak), would you have a problem with that?

by rmxt 11y ago

diminoten 11y ago

You actually think it's possible to perform police activity as outlined in the Public Laws of Baltimore without executing intelligence operations? How would you know when Bad Things are happening? Are you recommending they exclusively perform reactive services?

Karunamon 11y ago
Unstated assumption: that these "intelligence operations" are both legally permitted, and that even if they are, that they prevent enough crime to justify their existence. Not sure either of those things are true.
rmxt 11y ago
I stand fast by the notion that they shouldn't be performing general "intelligence operations", nor should they be recruiting the FBI to so on their behalf. They should be proactively fighting crime, but that doesn't need to (and legally shouldn't) entail wholesale monitoring of everyone in their jurisdiction (and then some, judging by the range of the drones and the involvement of the FBI). Do you actually think that the Baltimore PD has a cogent sense of probable cause and articuable suspicion for everyone that this device is collecting information on? If not, then this thing has no place being in the sky. This is unnecessary dragnet surveillance so that "boys can play with their toys", not proactive crime fighting with good purpose.
- diminoten2 11y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but it's not "unnecessary dragnet surveillance" to fly a drone over a hot zone in a city during a period of riots to monitor the state of the area, nor should the employees of companies who offer such services to these police departments "be ashamed".
  - rmxt 11y ago
    What is a "hot zone"? People obstructing traffic and breaking a few windows merits recording the location of every cell phone (basically every person over the age of 10) for an extended period of time? That's textbook "unnecessary dragnet surveillance". EDIT: How do you separate out: 1. People in the streets participating in marches. (maybe articuable suspicion) 2. People in the streets not participating in marches. (ipso facto no articuable suspicion) 3. People in their homes with their cell phones on. (ipso facto no articuable suspicion)
    - diminoten2 11y ago
      Do you see no difference between recording the location of every cell phone and taking video from the air of city streets?
      - rmxt 11y ago
        I am not sure I understand your question. I do see a difference, and that's exactly what I'm pointing out. Video cameras cannot see into homes and they require their attention to be focused on a particular area. Video cameras' very nature forces them to be used in a more selective fashion. The same cannot be said for these hypothetical Stingray laden drones. Hence, they shouldn't be available for use for general "population control," which is what the use in Baltimore amounts to.
        diminoten2 11y ago
        In the hypothetical situation where these drones were taking recorded video of publicly accessible areas of Baltimore ("the streets", so to speak), would you have a problem with that?