• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

with the Kraken taking a plea, the Cheese stands alone.

Bark louder, little dog.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

It’s a new day. Light all those Biden polls of young people on fire and throw away the ashes.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

Democrats have delivered the Square Deal, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and now… the Big Joe Biden Deal.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Trump’s legal defense is going to be a dumpster fire inside a clown car on a derailing train.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

The frogs are rarely mistaken.

I’m more Christian than these people and I’m an atheist.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

He imagines himself as The Big Bad, Who Is Universally Feared… instead of The Big Jagoff, Who Is Universally Mocked.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

If you are in line to indict donald trump, stay in line.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Not Just Some Dystopian Fantasy

Not Just Some Dystopian Fantasy

by John Cole|  December 12, 20111:34 pm| 284 Comments

This post is in: Decline and Fall, Security Theatre

FacebookTweetEmail

The new surveillance state and domestic drones.

Since that last thread had me as disgusted as I’ve ever been with the commentariat here, bonus points to the first commenter to come up with some variation of “If you haven’t done anything wrong” or “Nothing you do outside is private” to excuse this. Extra bonus points for the too cool for school kids who yawn and tell me “they’ll worry about it when they are arming them.”

*** Update ***

Maybe Charles Pierce can talk some sense into you.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Tattooed love boys
Next Post: 37 Trees »

Reader Interactions

284Comments

  1. 1.

    amk

    December 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Hey, at least you have one less drone to worry about ever since the eyeranians kidnapped it.

  2. 2.

    Linda Featheringill

    December 12, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Tra-la-la, I’m so disgusting, la-la-la.

    But seriously, when the drones were first introduced didn’t you wonder when they would be used domestically? Why not?

  3. 3.

    Yevgraf

    December 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    The surveillance genie is out of the bottle, and can’t come back in.

    This is a steady platform filming of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, taken by some guy with an affordable rig.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwuF5BuIcc&feature=player_embedded

    Its the church from “The Way”. Note where all it can go quietly.

  4. 4.

    Josie

    December 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    You would probably have better luck convincing this crowd of your position by linking to Pierce instead of Greenwald.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/north-dakota-drones-6614440

    Just trying to be helpful.

  5. 5.

    Mike G

    December 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    In addition to being creepily Orwellian, drones are damn expensive to operate — a Predator costs $7000 an hour. All for the great crime of not returning six cows that wandered onto a property; real proportional response there, weaponheads.

    But price is no object when it comes to the Security State. And no-one dares speak against them lest they be labelled “traitor” or “terrist-lover” by mouth-breathing authoritarians, or become a surveillance target themselves.

  6. 6.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    December 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    The growing threat of arrows in a sword based world
    The growing threat of horses for pursuit
    The growing threat of guns and cannons
    The growing threat of aeroplanes
    The growing threat of self propelled vehicles
    The growing threat of helicopters
    The growing threat of night vision
    The growing threat of cameras mounted on helicopters

    The drone is technology. If you want to have a useful conversation, let’s talk about people feeling like they have to give up their rights in order to feel safe.

  7. 7.

    Cap'n Magic

    December 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Time for some DIY MANPADS, perhaps?

  8. 8.

    CarolDuhart2

    December 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    It’s not the technology we need to worry about. We had the same fears when computers were being introduced, but the effect seems to have democratized things-giving people a voice, for instance. It’s the ground rules.

    One way to defuse this concern is to end the war on pot. That’s the justification for all of the snoop gear while al Quaeda shrinks to a tithe of its former size. End that, and surveillance tactics go away except for extreme circumstances.

    Another way is to finally get some explicit ground rules-state, national, local on the books, and demand the right to access the records. Between those two, it should clip the wings of the most abusive.

  9. 9.

    singfoom

    December 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    How long until Civil Libertarians launch their own drones to watch the government drones and then the Government passes legislation making surveillance of their drones illegal, like the laws that say you can’t videotape cops?

    At this point, we could power a Dynamo if we placed it near Orwell’s grave.

  10. 10.

    rreay

    December 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

    If it has to got that way, and I think it does, I’d accept constant public surveillance as long as everyone is surveiled.

  11. 11.

    Yevgraf

    December 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    @Mike G:

    In addition to being creepily Orwellian, drones are damn expensive to operate—a Predator costs $7000 an hour.

    This thing doesn’t.

    http://vimeo.com/19009743

  12. 12.

    ShadeTail

    December 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    They should have just used a damn airplane or helicopter. Less expensive, and apparently less slippery-slope.

  13. 13.

    hrprogressive

    December 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Look, I’m not shitting my pants over the idea of cops using a drone, even a Predator, for legitimate law enforcement uses, as appeared to be the case the other the day.

    However, do I share a concern that the use of this type of technology needs to be regulated and under certain conditions? Yes. Do I think we should just allow the miltary-industrial-complex to just slip the use of drones into our national airspace unfettered just so they can make more money? Hell no.

    But really, John, if you think that this story or whatever is somehow the “beginning” of our privacy and liberties and whatever being trashed, then you may be the one who needs a head examined.

    In the Post 9-11/Post-GWB world we live in, there honestly isn’t much more in the way of ‘LOOK HOW YOUR GOVERNMENT IS OR CAN SPY ON YOU’ that would shock me anymore.

    Until we get a new crop of politicians in Congress, we’re all pretty screwed as far as getting anything done anyway, so there’s not much use getting all riled up about it right now.

  14. 14.

    geg6

    December 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    THIS.

    Fuck the drones. I’m not worried about the tools (hey, I survived the days of MAD!). I’m much, much, much more worried about the pants-pissing wussies in this country who would give up everything in the Bill of Rights if someone could just assure they were “safe.”

    Pro-tip: No one and nothing is safe. We live and we die, every single one of us. Who the hell gives a shit how they die? What’s important is how you live.

  15. 15.

    redshirt

    December 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    This technology is inevitable – “resistance is futile”.

    Our only choice is how we’re going to deal with them. I believe masks/cloaks with hoods are going to become an increasingly popular response.

    Then they’ll ban masks.

  16. 16.

    Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)

    December 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Well, I sure don’t like it. Hell, why not just have the police come and rifle throught our stuff once a week, too? If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to worry about, right?

    And, mind you, I’m not saying that drones are the same as weekly police searches, but Obama should know better than this. Sooner or later (later, I hope), a Republican will win the presidency, and when that happens, who wants to lay odds on how long it’ll take to go from drones to some other, far more invasive invasion of our privacy?

  17. 17.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Are you seriously in favor of using surveillance drones inside the US?

    I look forward to a discussion of how heat rays are just technology after all.

  18. 18.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    The violation of fundamental values of various cultures is dramatic.
    Privacy and modesty are highly valued in many cultures. Under the ancient Islamic building code by which much of the Mediterranean was developed you had a positive obligation to not build in any way that would provide a view into a neighbor’s outdoor space- because if there was such a view the space was rendered unusable by women. Such construction constituted the taking of the neighbor’s outdoor property.
    An effect of universal arial surveillance will be, for many, a taking of their outdoor sphere. Maybe they could still do whatever it is they enjoyed outdoors, but they will be less comfortable and feel less free.

  19. 19.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Amazing – a piece entitled “The growing menace of domestic drones” doesn’t detail even a single instance of them being menacing.

    Most irritating is the conflation of Predator drones with the Hellfire missiles they can be equipped to launch. You know, an air-to-ground missile is really very non-trivial, and when there’s some evidence that police want these weapons, then concerns about drones will mean something. (Of course, Hellfires can also be fired from the helicopters police have been using for decades.)

    I’m usually on board with Greenwald but this is absurd. There’s not a single argument in this piece that isn’t handwaving at completely implausible stories of police deciding that getting warrants is too hard, so they’ll just destroy your house with an air strike.

  20. 20.

    El Cid

    December 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    The best thing to do is to get surveillance everywhere, at home, at work, on the street, in all stores, and of course more obviously online, and get to some state in which everyone realizes they hate it, and that they have lots of connections with people who have had their lives destroyed as a consequence, and then if that’s combined with a Republican President being in office, people can maybe feel like raising hell about it. Apart from that, feh.

  21. 21.

    superking

    December 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I’m here to disgust John Cole, so I’ll be the first to say that I don’t understand the difference between using a drone in this way and using a helicopter. The put the drone in the air, identified the people they were trying to arrest, and then pursued them on foot. This happens everyday in this country with helicopters and there are television shows dedicated to playing exactly this kind of footage, e.g. “Cops,” and “YOUR LOCAL FUCKING NEWS.” (You know they cream their pants any time they can get helicopter footage of a high speed chase.)

    The thing that is gross to me in this event is that the drone was used in response to a dispute over some goddamn cows, and it is apparently not clear that the guys they arrested did anything wrong here.

    Why is it wrong to accomplish something with a drone that you could accomplish with a helicopter?

    The problem with drones abroad is that we use them to blow people up, and we seem to do it in an indiscriminate and disproportional manner. As long as drones are being used like police helicopters, who gives a fuck? It’s not like they were using drones to continuously monitor these guys’ property and spy on them in violation of the 4th amendment.

  22. 22.

    Frankensteinbeck

    December 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):
    God damn right.

  23. 23.

    CarolDuhart2

    December 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    What I would worry about more is when this technology gets cheap enough to be used by people who have no one looking over their shoulder. Shouldn’t we be more worried about that? At least we can find the police station, but what about somebody with a grudge and a lot of money or obsession who wants to buy a drone to make someone’s life miserable? What happens to that information that doesn’t even go into an independent database that can be checked?

  24. 24.

    satby

    December 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    I’m with you John, the militarization and constant surveillance have no place in a nation that values liberty and privacy. But most of our countrymen don’t and that’s the real problem. They live in fear of “bad guys” ginned up by a relentless media drumbeat of be afraid, be afraid.

  25. 25.

    Dlw32

    December 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    If you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about… I mean doesn’t the software on those thing blank out innocent people? You know, make them all fuzzy and such…

    The only thing worse than this drone surveillance will be when they privatize it and your HMO can capture pictures of you smoking or eating fast food…

  26. 26.

    eemom

    December 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    as disgusted as I’ve ever been with the commentariat here

    hey, what did I do? All I said was how groovy it is that you’re a hippie now.

  27. 27.

    taylormattd

    December 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Perhaps, John, some of the reaction to your previous post stemmed from this line:

    How long until we are dropping freedom bombs on our own population.

  28. 28.

    John Cole

    December 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @superking: Then you didn’t read the god damned article I linked to, which clearly explains the difference between a helicopter’s capacity and a drones.

  29. 29.

    Frankensteinbeck

    December 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @smintheus:
    Heat rays are just technology. If you’ve got a heat ray that kills people, then there’s no damn difference between using a gun to kill someone or the heat ray. Using the heat ray should be illegal in exactly the circumstances the gun is, and legal in exactly the circumstances the gun is. (A large question that often involves things like collateral damage.)

  30. 30.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    once again WP won’t let me fix a typo

  31. 31.

    superking

    December 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    @John Cole:

    You’re right John, I didn’t. Glenn Greenwald is a bit of a liar, and an ineffective advocate for his cause. I’m sure he’s cooked up something, though, as he has that talent.

  32. 32.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    December 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    @smintheus: Actually, I’m arguing that the drone should not be the point.

    In fact, I don’t see a difference between a drone and a helicopter with a mounted camera, and yet I haven’t seen John shit his pants over those.

  33. 33.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    @smintheus:

    I look forward to a discussion of how heat rays are just technology after all.

    Riiiight. You’re talking about government death rays, but we’re the crazy ones. Good luck with that. Did they put a chip in your head, too?

  34. 34.

    trollhattan

    December 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    How do folks in the U.K. feel about being among the most-surveilled nations in the world, with the proliferation of video cameras there? Drone technology would seem to be a way to fasttrack something similar here, with the added “benefit” of stretching the view to your backyard at the click of a mouse.

  35. 35.

    El Cid

    December 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I think the difference between “drones” (or anything beginning with simple “radio controlled aircraft” to more automated varieties) is that helicopters are expensive and quite rare, and RC / semi-autonomous RC craft are likely to proliferate pretty wildly, and likely be used in all sorts of circumstances in which helo’s don’t or can’t work well or are prohibited.

    A quantitative change in the availability of surveillance very quickly begins to change the qualitative nature of surveillance.

    But there are also lots of positives and non-threatening developments, so perhaps people should wait and see, and if they don’t like what happens, worry about it when it’s very difficult to change. Anything before that seems overly excitable.

  36. 36.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I’ll be building jammers. Selling them at cost.

    Just have to figure out which bands they are using =P

    Be awesome if I can bring one down with a modified 1200w linear CB, seeing as how I have one laying around (FCC, you didn’t hear that!)

    PS: anyone know where I can get my hands on a drone? ;)

  37. 37.

    28 Percent

    December 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    During the Reign of Terror “the only people who should worry are those with something to hide” was the reasoning behind sending armed soldiers to do “random” house searches at 2 am, looking for Enemies of the Revolution. The drones just fly overhead looking for Evil in all its Forms and you can pretty much sleep through them. Basically, just as intrusive but with less emotional trauma and personal inconvenience.

    So, you know, progress.

  38. 38.

    Cap'n Magic

    December 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    If they use drones for surveillance, then its sousveillance time.

  39. 39.

    Scott Supak

    December 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I read Kollapsnik (Club Orlov) and John Robb’s Global Guerillas not necessarily because I think the whole shebang is going to collapse, but in order to see how to survive the collapse. While I hope those guys are wrong, the more I see, the more I realize that the future is bleak. There are just too many ways shit can go wrong. Besides, living in locally based, resilient communities is just the right thing to do for the future of the world, regardless of what happens to the global corporate life form that is choking us all, and the governments that feed it.

    On the bright side, the panopticon is an expensive endeavor, and the spies in the sky will be the first thing to go when the police state can no longer afford them, and the people figure out how to jam or otherwise disable them.

  40. 40.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    @amk:

    …one less drone to worry about ever since the eyeranians kidnapped it.

    My semi-educated guess is the drone the Iranians displayed is fake.

    Apparently, we did lose one, but, hopefully, the detonation package did it’s thing…

    …or not, who knows.

    As for the argument at hand, perhaps it’s because I’m a native Angelo that has helicopters with big ass cameras on them (some operated by police, others by your friendly neighborhood tabloids), drones just don’t raise an eyebrow.

  41. 41.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    In fact, I don’t see a difference between a drone and a helicopter with a mounted camera, and yet I haven’t seen John shit his pants over those.

    Well, of course not. When the Eyewitness 20 Traffic Copter (with Weather on the Nines!) flies over the highways all day, that’s just good journalism. But a kid puts a camera on an RC airplane – OMG police state!

  42. 42.

    Marci Kiser

    December 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Well, yes, it’s a grave threat to the American way of life, so long as we’re all okay with using Glenn Greenwald as the touchstone for sober, measured analysis that never ever ever descends into hyperbole or unintentional self-parody. Because “whatever else is true,” his column boldly stands by the conclusion that “There is no question that this could become something that people will regret.”

    I say this fully expecting not only my extra bonus points, but perhaps a pair of ‘Risky Business’ style sunglasses to emphasize my too-cool-for-school status. Because taking Greenwald with a boulder of salt is a scurrilous ad hominem attack, but pre-emptively dismissing everyone who refuses to hop on board the Niemöller train as hippie-punchers or authoritarian apologists is bloggerific.

  43. 43.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    OMG and did you guys know? Police are using sense organs built right into their face to “look around” and see everything you’re doing outside and in other public spaces! OMG police state! Why, if you can’t control the reception of the photons that bounce right off of your body how can anybody be said to be free?

    All right-thinking patriots must protest the opticalization of police!

  44. 44.

    taylormattd

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    @Chet: It’s proto-libertarian porn, that will likely cause Greenwald to continue to flirt with Ron Paul and / or Gary Johnson.

    I hate how people like Greenwald turn an overdue discussion of the over-militarization of local police departments into “THEY ARE BOMBING US LIKE WE ARE THE TALIBAN”

  45. 45.

    Mattminus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Truly, the all-seeing robotic killing machine is the Jew of liberal fascism.

  46. 46.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    @superking: First time I lived in a US city that had regular helicopter patrols, I was horrified and couldn’t wait to move away. It’s intrusive, obnoxious, Orwellian. Drones are far worse because you know when a helicopter is overhead, and they are almost by dint of their cost military hardware. I don’t want the military patrolling inside the US or otherwise snooping on Americans – what was the outrage against the NSA’s spying all about?

  47. 47.

    Nash

    December 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    You know what’s gonna be hilarious? When someone eventually figures out how to hack into a drone’s signal and override it or pilot it themselves.

    Wait, no, that’s not hilarious, that’s the other thing . . . what was it? Oh yeah! Terrifying!

  48. 48.

    taylormattd

    December 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    @Marci Kiser: I think I love you.

  49. 49.

    trollhattan

    December 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    @El Cid:

    Methinks you’ve identified several key differences, the greatest being the relatively tiny cost of drones versus piloted helos, which puts them within reach of thousands of departments that could never justify, much less afford helicopters.

    Also, too, police helicoptors are sooooo unstealthy–anybody being “spied upon” darn well knows it.

  50. 50.

    J.W. Hamner

    December 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Yeah, don’t get it. Sorry to be disappoint. You’re on video tape in nearly every public place you enter. I’d probably rather not be, but eh…

    …and no I won’t read a Greenwald article and Pierce was unconvincing with the “ZOMG! Slippery Slope!” nonsense. They’re just model planes with cameras. Big deal.

  51. 51.

    Punchy

    December 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Why cant they add 100 seats to these drones and fly peeps from Bismark to Walla Walla while spying on the Sov Cits in Boise? At least they can make a buck while bending the 4th Amendy.

  52. 52.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    December 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    BTW, whoever said that if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about is as dumb as Michele Bachmann (?sp). Those are exactly the kind of statements that allow the government to do things like fly a drone around “looking” for people to do things wrong.

  53. 53.

    Winston Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I’m not going to be concerned about drones until they are so common that companies can purchase ads one them and they end up looking like flying NASCAR cars.

    How’s that?

  54. 54.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Probably because Law Enforcement does not use RC helicopters to spy on US citizens.

    Your analogy is stupid. Put a little more effort into your next response. I barely used any calories rebutting you.

  55. 55.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    @Chet: You do know that the military has developed heat rays for crowd control?

  56. 56.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    I would say this

    If you give cops military weapons, they will use them in a military fashion and, very likely, without the kind of fire-control discipline you learn in the Army. […]Why not a few Hellfires fired into the local weed farm?
    Worse, the more militarized the weaponry, the more militarized the attitude of the people who use it, the more likely they are to look at suspects as “the enemy,” and at virtually everyone as a suspect. This slope is extraordinarily steep and extraordinarily slippery.

    is the problem rather than the technology. What was Bloomberg’s remark about being ‘commander-in-chief’ of the Xth largest army in the world, something like that? How do you fight that kind of mentality? Especially in the allegedly bluest part of the country, a good chunk of people probably cheered when Bloomberg said that.And haven’t some pretty aggressive airwar techniques been used already against California pot farms?

    Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/north-dakota-drones-6614440#ixzz1gLg36gHo

  57. 57.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Yeah – like giving up our right to be free from mass-surveillance by airborne cameras?

    I know it’s not listed in the BoR or anything, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less disconcerting, or any less dangerous than it is.

  58. 58.

    Frankensteinbeck

    December 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    …John, you’re using this Pierce article? Seriously? An article with lines like:

    If you can justify unarmed drones against civilians, then why not armed drones? Why not a few Hellfires fired into the local weed farm?

    and

    Years ago, a rather loopy governor of New Hampshire named Meldrim Thomson once proposed arming his National Guard with nuclear weapons. Everybody laughed. Turns out he was just ahead of his time.

    ?

    This is exactly the kind of argument that makes ‘slippery slope’ a fallacy. It is as much an absurd overreach and a distraction from real issues as the conservative ‘gay marriage will allow us to marry animals’. Police have helicopters and gasoline. It’s still not accepted police policy to firebomb neighborhoods.

  59. 59.

    bobbo

    December 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Just wondering – since these things are higher up than helicopters, and since our friendly police forces are going to want to keep them secret, will air traffic control know about them? If not, will we be having weekly mid-air collisions, drone-to-drone, and drone-to-767, with all the thousands of pounds of burning metal falling on houses and cars and pedestrians?

  60. 60.

    jl

    December 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    @gaz: That sounds like terrorism to me, buddy. The Senate has a solution for you. I would send in a note of support at your annual military review panel, but it might get me on a list as a supporter of known terrorists for the next pick up, so good luck to you.

    Actually, the business about the Senate voting 97 to 3 to destroy due process for US citizens on US soil has me more concerned than drones.

    The power of drones to spy, damage and kill with a flip of a switch is concerning. Just as the power of the local cops to blow up stuff, or ram some goofy and lethal police tank with a turn of a steering wheel through a (usually wrong with a kid sleeping nearby) door is concerning.

    But as the AQ terrorist organization has been decimated, the supposed concern by our overlords to erase our civil liberties in order to keep us 1000 percent safe (from a diminishing threat) increases at an insane pace.

    We need to prioritize. I have decided to put erosion of Constitutional protections higher than drones, for now.

  61. 61.

    redshirt

    December 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    I’m rather shocked at some of the responses here – which Cole predicted.

    I guess the whole “If you have nothing to hide…” mentality has taken deep root.

  62. 62.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    @trollhattan:

    So, what? You were OK with police use of airborne surveillance just as long as it was so expensive they couldn’t do it except where it was needed most?

    Everything gets cheaper over time. You need a more robust means of protecting civil liberties than hoping that it costs too much money to violate them.

  63. 63.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    @John Cole:

    Extra bonus points for the too cool for school kids who yawn and tell me “they’ll worry about it when they are arming them.”

    I read your comments in the original thread, and posted a reply. Still works here since you have brought the issue up again.

    As to those of you poo-pooing this and saying “how is this any different than a helicopter,” in five to ten years when unmanned drones are flying all over your neighborhood surveilling and storing info at random, you can think back to mocking us privacy hysterics.

    Man, this is funny. Corporations and the government are amassing a treasure trove of information on you from your freaking cellphone.

    Have you people not been following the Carrier IQ debacle?

    Even funnier, there is a generation of young adults who willingly yield up every byte of data about themselves, their family and their friends just so they can have a cool Facebook page and access to the latest computer games.

    And there is this little gem recently reported in the NY Times

    Netflix is backing a bill in Congress that would amend the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law that requires a video services company to get a customer’s written consent when it seeks to disclose that client’s personal information, such as rental history. The new bill, passed by the House last Tuesday, would allow consumers to give one-time blanket consent online for a company to share their viewing habits continuously.

    When you have the heads of google and Facebook firmly, but gently insisting that privacy is an old fashioned concept, and when you have millions of people happily pimping themselves to social media apps, all this moaning about government drones and the one note harping of the Great and Good Greenwald come across as quaint as somebody talking about how the horseless carriage is upsetting the mares that draw the family buggy to church on Sundays.

  64. 64.

    Winston Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    @Nash:

    You know what’s gonna be hilarious? When someone eventually figures out how to hack into a drone’s signal and override it or pilot it themselves.

    There are some pretty straightforward techniques that could make this practically impossible. I certainly hope they are being employed.

    I think the best you can hope for is to jam the control signal. If I was designing this, I would also make it “return to home” if it lost a control signal for a certain period of time, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that didn’t occur to the plorgs who design these things.

  65. 65.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    Heat rays are just technology.

    And there it is. Fwiw, heat rays like ‘rubber’ bullets were developed for crowd control…and similarly can be fatal. And if the police were to turn heat rays on OWS crowds? Just technology?

  66. 66.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    December 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @trollhattan: But what happens if they overcome those limitations? Are you suddenly going to become concerned about helicopters?

    I just think the drones are the wrong argument.

  67. 67.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @Josie:

    You would probably have better luck convincing this crowd of your position by linking to Pierce instead of Greenwald.

    Does it matter one damn bit who delivers the news as long as it is true?
    @Yevgraf:

    The surveillance genie is out of the bottle, and can’t come back in.

    You are so right.

    In the previous thread, someone criticized what they called a “slippery slope” argument. Well, we are on that slope, it’s steep and we are all sliding further down.

    For those who have no issues with this, remember that it is not whether or not you have done something wrong, it is all about whether or not some one can justify their expense account by convincing others that you deserve to be suspected of doing something wrong. Anonymity and privacy are important bumpers between us and the gross stupidity of governmental authority. We also need to be protected from the nongovernmental operators who will be able to get their hands on the products of such governmental intrusions.

  68. 68.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @jl: If researching an effective countermeasure to drone surveillance, and making it available to US citizens who don’t want to be subject to surveillance by keystone kops makes me a terrorist, then I’ll wear the terrorist label proudly.

    If my government won’t make it illegal, I’ll do my best to make it impractical.

  69. 69.

    Suffern ACE

    December 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @superking: The problem with the drones abroad is that we not only use them to misidentify targets, but also use them to fire missles accurately. We have no idea how effective they are at the type of surveilance that they are supposed to do because the sucessful outcomes are reported more than the devastaing errors. (And very few people want to know that US bombs aren’t all that accurate. Aren’t really all that “surgical”, or, or succintly, that they are accurately falling on false targets.)

    It might make more sense to demand that we stop using drones abroad where we can’t see the results and use them for police work here to replace helicopters. Safer at least, since I don’t think we’re to the point where people would put up with the violent aspects of drones for all that long.

  70. 70.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    @El Cid:

    A quantitative change in the availability of surveillance very quickly begins to change the qualitative nature of surveillance.

    Exactly. The same thing happened with the digitization of public records. It used to be that if, say, you got arrested, the fact of your arrest was “public”, but since all records were paper records, others didn’t know about it unless they actually dragged themselves down to the courthouse and did a physical search of the records — so most cases like this, though technically public, remained effectively private.

    Now, of course, if you want to get the files on someone all it takes is a few seconds and some keystrokes. So though the law has not changed, effectively technology has caused us to give up a lot of privacy.

    The same thing with drones. People who say “well what about helicopters” are missing the fact that, unlike helicopters, drones can be invisible, permanent and cheap (they are expensive now, but will become vanishingly cheap in the near future). Police were never going to keep a helicopter hovering over a specific neighborhood forever, because it would be loud, unpleasant and cost them a lot in overtime and fuel, so that caused an effective limit on surveillance.

    With a drone, however, you can keep one over a suspect’s house, or even his neighborhood, effectively forever, putting him on 24/7 surveillance — and the digital images can also be stored forever. You can maintain a complete, 100% searchable, permanent record of an entire neighborhood’s comings and goings.

    If that doesn’t scare you, well, I don’t know what will.

  71. 71.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    And haven’t some pretty aggressive airwar techniques been used already against California pot farms?

    It is hard to believe that there are’t drones conducting mass surveillance over N. California, thick as the air is with military helicopters. Why wouldn’t the guys with the gear use their cheaper and stealthier gear?

    There needs to be a law against warrantless drone surveillance except in very special cases, such as search and rescue.

  72. 72.

    jl

    December 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    I like to outrage Cole. I guess I agree with the ‘drones are technology’ argument. But all technology exists in a social and legal context. The social and legal context of all technology, from flexicuffs, to pepper spray, to proposed guilty until proven innocent measures such as shutting down internet sites, and military pick ups of US citizens on US soil make any technology that is used for population control alarming.

  73. 73.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck: I rolled my eyes at the exact lines you quoted, but Pierce is a satirist, with wide and wild axe-swinging style. Sometimes he swings too wide, but I think he’s dead-on about the militarization of the police

    As to the case at hand: I am not so bothered by police officers using whatever technology they have available when people have been trying to shoot at them. The problem comes, and the slope is short, steep and slippery, and we’ve slid down it lots of times, when they’re using the technology against a meth lab and they still get the wrong address and kill a little kid, or when they’re using it against some old hippies growing pot for themselves and a few friends.

  74. 74.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    @smintheus:

    And if the police were to turn heat rays on OWS crowds? Just technology?

    Like the use of pepper spray, I think progressive people would overwhelmingly and rightly recognize that their unjustified use was an example of police brutality.

    I don’t see how the same thing applies to police using a flying camera to take pictures of people outside, after getting a warrant to do so. Is the problem here that you can’t tell the difference between a flashbulb and a gunshot?

  75. 75.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): There are major differences between drones and helicopters, and the latter are obnoxious enough.

    In any case, if you want to end a practice then you’ve got to be prepared to complain about it. What are you trying to achieve by mocking those who complain about intrusive surveillance?

  76. 76.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    @Chet:

    So, what? You were OK with police use of airborne surveillance just as long as it was so expensive they couldn’t do it except where it was needed most?

    Well, yes. I’d like these things to be done on a “when needed most” basis rather than on a 24/7, we never sleep basis.

    Or, in other words, I’d like the police to be surveilling me when they really and with probable cause think I’ve committed a crime, rather than them surveilling me every second of every day.

  77. 77.

    matryoshka

    December 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    So how are police departments that can’t afford pens and radios and, you know, police going to buy drones?

  78. 78.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    @Winston Smith: Drone signals have already been hacked.

    Keep up.

  79. 79.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: see “non-lethal” tasers – grandma – et al.

  80. 80.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Seems like there ought to be a distinction between “things you buy from the military that go boom” and “other things you buy from the military.” Because otherwise a legitimate concern about privacy and surveillance is getting all mixed up with a slippery-slope-ish worry about “militarization.” And “militarization” is an inapt term to describe things like warrantless wiretapping and the installation of GPS technology in everything, which you’d think would be linked civil-liberties issues.

    (The set of concerns around “militarization” have more to do with SWAT teams, belligerent and muscular poses, and heavy weaponry. You can buy surplus jeeps from the military, too, but that wouldn’t “militarize” anything in a meaningful way.)

    So, to go back to the beginning, it seems inflammatory to link surveillance drones to missile-armed surveillance drones in order to capitalize on the notoriety of the latter… when the real point is much less drones than surveillance. Using hot-air balloons to spy on criminal suspects would be an invasion of privacy and an expansion of the “national security state” too, but would have precisely nothing to do with “militarization.” “Militarization” seems like a way to dress up one lament (waning protection against surveillance, diminishing rights to privacy) in the colors of another (the government’s jackbooted thugs terrorizing the populace by raining death from above).

  81. 81.

    The Bobs

    December 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The best way to eliminate this kind of police overreach and militarization is to convince everyone that hippies love surveillance.

    You guys are doing it all wrong.

  82. 82.

    jl

    December 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    it is the social and legal context that makes all this alarming. After, either in this administration or the next, people can be deprived of due process and picked up and placed in bogus military terrorist justice system, what difference does it make whether some pissed off neighbors, or a drone that, say, was looking at the wrong address (but that would never happen with ‘high technology’ would it?) gets you on a naughty list.

  83. 83.

    taylormattd

    December 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    @redshirt:

    I’m rather shocked at some of the responses here – which Cole predicted. . . . I guess the whole “If you have nothing to hide…” mentality has taken deep root.

    No, turns out it hasn’t. As I write this, there are 72 comments, and approximately ZERO of them can be described as “if you have nothing to hide” mentality comments.

    But you and John can continue to deliberately mischaracterize every single one of them if it helps you maintain your fantasy where mild disagreement with Greenwald hyperbole = hippie punching.

  84. 84.

    slag

    December 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    I don’t even like cameras at traffic lights. To me, it’s all too dehumanizing.

  85. 85.

    taylormattd

    December 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: Yes, this comment is perfect. Exactly.

  86. 86.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    With a drone, however, you can keep one over a suspect’s house, or even his neighborhood, effectively forever, putting him on 24/7 surveillance—and the digital images can also be stored forever.

    If we’ve gotten to the point where we have absolutely no legal tools to prevent police from doing round-the-clock surveillance on anyone they wanted and maintaining evidence archives indefinitely, then we let the police state already happen. Drones and digital images had nothing to do with it.

    On the other hand – if there’s a legal right not to be surveilled by police for an indefinite period of time, the use of drones doesn’t sidestep that right.

    Either way, drones don’t matter.

  87. 87.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    @smintheus:

    What are you trying to achieve by mocking those who complain about intrusive surveillance?

    He gets to feel all worldly, jaded and cooly contrarian?

  88. 88.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck: I’m sure a ‘heat ray’ would be a proscribed weapon (for civilians), like having a bazooka or a rotary cannon.

  89. 89.

    Neldob

    December 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    I’m more worried about how the corporatocracy will use this info. They could make J Edgar Hoover look like a piker.

  90. 90.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    @Chet: How do you appropriately secure a limited warrant for airborne surveillance?

    And who do we trust at the local PD to ensure that non-warrant video captures hit the cutting room floor?

    And whose to say that we won’t eventually see some sort of Probable Cause legislation that allows these cops to use this footage to pursue these non-warranted video captures?

    Mass Surveillance is a Bad Idea(tm) when it comes to free societies. Always has been. Always will be.

  91. 91.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    Well, yes. I’d like these things to be done on a “when needed most” basis rather than on a 24/7, we never sleep basis.

    Then you were an idiot not to have that enshrined in the law. (But, news flash, Heat came out in the 90’s. Around-the-clock surveillance by police is not something uniquely made possible by drones.)

  92. 92.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    The freedom that you all hold dear is the freedom to dissent. To complain when you don’t like how government is working. Or not working. When your every movement is watched and all of your “personal” information is known to the government, how much dissent do you think you will be able to harbor?
    Take OWS. You attend and get pepper sprayed and arrested. It’s brutal, it’s most likely cruel and unusual punishment, and the arrest may in fact be illegal. So what? The police/justice side will release you and probably not even charge you. They may make you very uncomfortable and possibly disgusted, maybe even hostile. And your only recourse is to file a civil suit. That will take years and cost a bundle. And in the end you may not ever get the smallest level of satisfaction. Meanwhile the police/justice/government continue to use all the means at their disposal to quell dissent. Means that you have no say about and no control of.
    You are then no longer free. In any sense of the word.
    You want real freedom (not freedumb)? If you do then every thing you do can not be made illegal and the government can not watch you 24 hours a day.
    Greenwald may be a bit much for many of us but his point is right on. Governments will protect themselves from anyone taking power away from them. Always. They do this in one of two ways. Legally, by passing laws that allow them to take your ability to dissent. Illegally by doing whatever they damn well feel like. They will hide the obvious stuff until they no longer have to. Then they will give up caring if you notice. They don’t even have to conspire to do this. It is the natural direction of governments to protect them selves bit by bit, layer by layer.
    I’m waiting for the exact moment when this country ceases to be a democracy and becomes a police state. I don’t think I have to hold my breath.

  93. 93.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    @The Dangerman: It looks like a convincing forgery, if that is what it is.

  94. 94.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    @The Dangerman: Your PD uses RC helos for surveillance?!!!

    Thank god I don’t live in your hood. Good thing for you (as a hobbyist) you can probably alter the flight path of any inbounds =P (how many frequencies you got?! =P)

  95. 95.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    If that doesn’t scare you, well, I don’t know what will.

    But it should scare you from the perspective of surveillance — not from the perspective of The Government firing at will on its own populace to cow them into submission. Because that’s, literally, straight out of 1990s militia movement New World Order stuff.

  96. 96.

    trollhattan

    December 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Thing is they’re simply not comparable, nor will the lines between the two technologies become blurry. Drones offer a jump orders of magnitude beyond what manned helicoptors can do at a cost orders of magnitude lower. I don’t see this as a camel’s nose under the tent, I see it as a camel stampede.

    My city’s PD can’t afford to fly the helo they were given. Conversely, what would Joe Arpaio do with a dozen drones and some trained operators, today?

  97. 97.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    And haven’t some pretty aggressive airwar techniques been used already against California pot farms?

    This is funny. The “aggressive techniques” haven’t had much impact on the street price of pot, which is a pretty good indicator of their futility. And then there are all the numerous hydroponics factories in California neighborhoods. From a recent LA Times story:

    Nationwide demand for high-potency marijuana has turned Florida into a top producer of hydroponic weed, and hundreds of people are turning their homes into lucrative grow houses, local law enforcement said.
    __
    The illegal drug nurseries are hidden everywhere from million-dollar homes to run-down apartments, putting unsuspecting neighbors in serious danger, police said. Some grow houses are discovered only after explosions or fires.

    And as others have noted, the greatest danger to a drone is a bored teenager which some computer knowledge and time on his or her hands.

  98. 98.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    @ John Cole:

    It’s possible to conjure up all sorts of hypothetical scenarios in which the use of UAVs could create legitimate issues. This case, based on its actual facts, doesn’t.

    Let’s recap.

    The sheriff had a search warrant. That, my friends, is a big fucking deal. It means that he swore an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that there was probable cause to believe that stolen property was present on that farm, and a judge found the affidavit credible. He was absolutely entitled to go onto that farm to search for the stolen cattle, but when he attempted to do so, he was met with a credible threat of the illegal use of lethal force against him. That’s the prima facie case for assault in a nutshell. There can be no doubt who the bad guys are in this scenario, and it isn’t the sheriff.

    Now, he could have come back with a large number of heavily armed men, and triggered a confrontation the likely result of which would have been multiple fatalities. Instead, he took advantage of technology that allowed him to locate the bad guys and arrest them without any casualties.

    This was nothing but good, professional policing.

    How would you have handled it?

  99. 99.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    @matryoshka:

    So how are police departments that can’t afford pens and radios and, you know, police going to buy drones?

    Expensed out over the life of service, drones are cheaper than cops, and a lot cheaper than cops in cars.

  100. 100.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    @Brachiator: ;) we’re not all teenagers. but yeah – if I were a betting – a teenager will be the first to pull off a decent jammer =P

  101. 101.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    @burnspbesq: SWAT

    Adding, drones can’t handcuff people and take them into custody.

  102. 102.

    J.W. Hamner

    December 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Using a drone for surveillance still requires a warrant, correct?

    What difference does it make if that court ordered surveillance is done via wiretap, dudes with cameras on a rooftop, or an RC plane?

    I mean this in all seriousness.

  103. 103.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    @taylormattd: Check out ‘Chet’. He/she goes with the: ‘Even if you have something to hide, tough shit. Go find some dirt on them & it will be all good’.

  104. 104.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    @Brachiator: I thought I remembered a case (Pre-legalization, maybe as far back as Bush I) where the DEA had actually some kind of incendiary bombs on some big pot operations in CA, but nothings coming up on the google.

  105. 105.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    @J.W. Hamner: Airborne camera is kind of hard to limit to the target, for starters…

    Warrants don’t usually include spying on all of your neighbors on the same block.

  106. 106.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    It looks like a convincing forgery, if that is what it is.

    Not really; there is a reason that the B2 and F117 look they way they do. For me, the fact that the landing gear is covered up is the deal breaker.

  107. 107.

    MikeJ

    December 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    You know what else enables the surveillance state? License plates. It’s like I’m forced to wear a yellow star of David! Oogity boogity!

  108. 108.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    How do you appropriately secure a limited warrant for airborne surveillance?

    What about that is supposed to be hard? You get the warrant, and it tells you what geographic area and what times you can engage in airborne surveillance, what has to happen to the pictures, and so on.

    And who do we trust at the local PD to ensure that non-warrant video captures hit the cutting room floor?

    I don’t know, but that’s hardly a Pandora’s Box that drones opened. Video cameras have been out for decades. Cameras are a hundred years old. It’s not like drones are the first time police have had to manage an archive of video surveillance with sensitivity to the activities of bystanders who happened to be caught on tape. Hell, that’s something Google has had to do. The notion that this is somehow more invasive than Google Street View is absurd.

    If you think there are genuine problems with how police departments have been trained to store surveillance evidence, then those issues should be addressed. Drones have nothing to do with it.

  109. 109.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    @Rafer Janders: He needs to write for Slate.

  110. 110.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    @burnspbesq: How can that sherriff afford his own drone? Was the USAF controlling/operating that drone?

  111. 111.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    Using a drone for surveillance still requires a warrant, correct?

    No.

  112. 112.

    Waldo

    December 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    In general the drone surveillance thing sounds like a bad idea. But in this particular case you could make the argument that it saved lives. Imagine how things might have turned out differently for the alleged cattle rustlers if the cops had assumed they were armed to the teeth.

  113. 113.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    @smintheus:

    I don’t want the military patrolling inside the US or otherwise snooping on Americans

    Do you have any evidence that your dystopian fantasies are anything other than dystopian fantasies?

  114. 114.

    ABL

    December 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    @taylormattd: precisely. it was the reference to MOVE and Mumia that irked me.

    From the article you linked,

    When the Rev. Isaac Miller arrived in Philadelphia shortly after the bombing, there was little discussion of it, he says. It was too disturbing: The city’s first black mayor had dropped a bomb on a black neighborhood.

    “In many ways, for African-Americans, it’s painful to remember,” says Miller, an Episcopal priest who will speak Friday at a commemoration. “But … it has to be” remembered.

    A commission that investigated found that Goode and two other officials, police commissioner Gregore Sambor and fire commissioner William Richmond, had been “grossly negligent.” The deaths of the MOVE children “appeared to be unjustified homicide,” it said. Police had not taken them out of the house when they had the chance. They had used excessive force in firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the house. The plan to drop explosives was “reckless” and “unconscionable.” And they let the fire burn until it was too late to control.

    You flippantly (at least it seemed flippant to me) made a comment about freedom bombs, linked the MOVE incident, and then immediately thereafter commented on your disappointment in the administration’s use of drones.

    Your update notwithstanding, what was a throwaway line to you was not such to me. Probably something to do with me being black and from Philly.

    At any rate, that’s my $.02.

  115. 115.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    @wrb: Seriously? holy shit! you got a cite?

  116. 116.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    @The Dangerman: Read the link. Will have to look at some more video.

  117. 117.

    J.W. Hamner

    December 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    @gaz:

    A wiretap isn’t confined to the target either, so even though IANAL I have to assume the courts have dealt with coming across evidence of criminal activity unrelated to the original warrant. I have no idea what the restrictions are on that, but if the “wide net” is problematic there, then it’s already baked in… and RC planes don’t make a difference.

  118. 118.

    cathyx

    December 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    John-
    I hope you realize that you created this blog monster. Balloon juice is one of the last Obamabot sites left. Don’t even criticize this administration.

  119. 119.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    @Chet: Suffice it to say that all of the “I don’t knows” in your post should have been hashed out *before* using drones was on the table.

    And your analogy of cameras to drones is facile.

    It’s probably more apt to compare the drones to using satellite surveillance.

  120. 120.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    @trollhattan:

    Conversely, what would Joe Arpaio do with a dozen drones and some trained operators, today?

    Probably commit illegal violations of your civil rights, at which point you could have him arrested and prosecuted.

  121. 121.

    J.W. Hamner

    December 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    @wrb:

    In the quoted article they obtained a warrant before calling in a drone, so you’ll have to provide a cite.

  122. 122.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    @Chet: If things actually worked the way you’d like to believe, Arpaio would have been gone years ago.

  123. 123.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    Will have to look at some more video.

    Google “John Pike” (GlobalSecurity.org); I saw he had an opinion and I don’t recall it in the article.

    Best semi-educated guess is there was a drone lost, but it self-destructed at loss of signal. It’s in pieces someplace.

  124. 124.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    @cathyx: I’m profoundly disappointed in Obama, despite some high points.

    I’m not the only one here who feels that way.

  125. 125.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I thought I remembered a case (Pre-legalization, maybe as far back as Bush I) where the DEA had actually some kind of incendiary bombs on some big pot operations in CA, but nothings coming up on the google.

    Don’t matter. The net effect of all these efforts on pot sale and distribution are negligible, although they do make for cool photo ops, especially when they lay out the pot and cash seized for the Six O’Clock news.

  126. 126.

    redshirt

    December 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    @taylormattd: Yes, all the “just like helicopters” and “just technology” comments are my misreads.

    I think many of you simply don’t understand what’s coming. I have no other way to explain it.

  127. 127.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @burnspbesq: Yes: NSA warrantless surveillance. You may have heard about it.

  128. 128.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @gaz: You’re also not the only one here with a low bar for use of the word “profoundly.”

  129. 129.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @jl:

    After, either in this administration or the next, people can be deprived of due process and picked up and placed in bogus military terrorist justice system

    Did you miss the part where Obama said he would veto the NDAA, or do you not believe him?

  130. 130.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    @Mike G: Where do you get $7,000/hour?
    The Customs and Border Protection Service estimates that the operating cost of a MQ-1 Predator is $3,250/hr. Not cheap, but still half of what you’re claiming.
    The fact is that this really isn’t any different than the use of helicopters or night vision gear for surveillance by domestic police forces.
    It’s not the technology, it’s the intent behind the use of the technology.
    I’m quite certain that I don’t want Joe Arpaio determining what acceptable use of just about anything is, let alone surveillance drones, but I also don’t see them as inherently evil.

  131. 131.

    The Moar You Know

    December 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    I’d accept constant public surveillance as long as everyone is surveiled.

    @rreay: Another sheep heard from. You know that will never happen, the wealthy and powerful will be exempt from that law too, just like they are exempt from all others.

    Why do you people persist in playing semantic games that give cover to those whose only agenda is to tie you to a treadmill and make you work until you drop for their amusement?

  132. 132.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    @gaz: Only when he does it to white people. Arizona, remember?

  133. 133.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    @gaz:

    Aerial surveillance happens all the time without warrants. Ask anyone in LA or Northern California/Southern Oregon. There is a law restricting how low they can fly, that’s it.

    There is no special law for drones, and there should be, due to their invisibility, their ability to stay on station indefinitely and their economy.

    At first I was inclined to shrug at Cole’s concern, figuring it the overreaction of someone who didn’t know helicopter surveillance had been going on since Reagan, but the threat is orders of magnitude greater.

    It is something very different, to which the laws regulating helicopters are inadequate.

  134. 134.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    @The Dangerman: They spent months piecing together our secret cables that we had shredded back in 1980. I would expect they would try & put the blown up one back together (if they can get to the pieces).

  135. 135.

    cathyx

    December 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    @gaz: Now you did it. You will be added to their pie filters.

  136. 136.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    @J.W. Hamner: Traditional wiretaps and cell wiretaps are in fact (when requested by a PD) limited in scope. They target A PHONE.

    Unless of course, you are referring to the Federal Wiretap crap that was pushed through under Bush. I’ve *ALWAYS* had a problem with that – and if you are attempting to justify drones by pointing to our current federal wiretapping debacle, then you are an asshole. Why? Because you are using previous instances where the Govt successfully shat on our freedom, to justify further instances of shitting on our freedom. That’s some grade A, distilled asshole.

  137. 137.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    I have no problem with how the drone was used in the quoted article.

  138. 138.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    @gaz: Just think about ‘President McCain’ or better yet, ‘President Palin’ (as she would have murdered McCain by now) and realize what Pres. Obama saved us from.

    I will say I’m a bit disappointed on the civil liberties front.

  139. 139.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    I would expect they would try & put the blown up one back together (if they can get to the pieces).

    If it was recovered, yes, that would surely be the case.

    It’s kinda like the helicopter that got roasted in the Bin Laden raid; would any useful intelligence be extracted from the wreckage/pieces? No guess there.

  140. 140.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    @smintheus:

    Yes: NSA warrantless surveillance. You may have heard about it.

    Not even remotely the same thing, and you surely know that.

  141. 141.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    @Chet:

    I don’t know, but that’s hardly a Pandora’s Box that drones opened. Video cameras have been out for decades. Cameras are a hundred years old. It’s not like drones are the first time police have had to manage an archive of video surveillance with sensitivity to the activities of bystanders who happened to be caught on tape. Hell, that’s something Google has had to do. The notion that this is somehow more invasive than Google Street View is absurd.

    A weakness in that statement is that inherent in your examples is the lack of private/public separation. There are surveillance cams in my city, but I must go to them. Google is a static photo. I don’t even own the car anymore that is on my street view and I imagine the tech on a drone combined with line of sight angles can create much more intrusive imagery than many here can imagine.

    And I said above, one does not have to be doing illegal or dangerous things, one only has to be thought to be doing so.
    I have seen several friends spend lots of money for lawyers to prove their (actual) innocence. Real cops and prosecutors do not act like the ones on TV. Sorry.

  142. 142.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    @Chet:

    Yes, I should have enshrined this into law when I was a five year old child with no legislative authority. Stupid of me.

  143. 143.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    @redshirt: What’s coming? Death from above, or tighter surveillance? Because IMHO it’s kind of important to make that distinction.

  144. 144.

    dadanarchist

    December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    If you don’t want the government spying on you when you take a shit or jerkoff, don’t poop and don’t play with yourself.

  145. 145.

    Southern Beale

    December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    But John, they’re just keeping up with our corporate overlords! After all, if Google executives can purchase personal fighter jets, the rest of us have to defend ourselves, too!

    Arms race is ON, bitches!

  146. 146.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Do you have any evidence that your dystopian fantasies are anything other than dystopian fantasies?

    Other than, say, camouflage-clad soldiers with automatic rifles patrolling Grand Central Station in the middle of Manhattan, as they do every day?

  147. 147.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    @The Dangerman: Probably able to get intelligence from some of the materials it was made from, etc.

  148. 148.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: If thinking that makes you sleep better, so be it.

    I voted for one guy, and got another guy instead. They were both named Obama.

    And the way he has fucked over migrant workers, screwed up on the Bush tax cuts, orchestrated deficit hawkishness, kept the Fed freshly stocked with ignorant jagoffs, expanded the Executive power to unilaterally declare war, endorsed DINO candidacies, ignored Labor, and has done nothing to fix the War on Drugs.

    I really don’t consider him all that different from George HW Bush on matters of policy. And I do NOT trust the man.

    I think “profoundly” was the appropriate adjective, and I stick by it.

    Sounds like you are the one who set the bar low.

    Whatever floats your boat man.

  149. 149.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    @cathyx:

    The fact that there is no law restricting the use of drones by any level of law enforcement isn’t Obama’s doing. Congress would have to pass such a thing.

    I thought the helicopter surveillance would go down under Clinton but it went way up. I haven’t seen a copter since Obama was elected, however.

  150. 150.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    @Brachiator: The whole “war on drugs” is pretty ineffective, doesn’t stop even Democratic pols from doubling down on it to appeal to the Grundys. With these drones, my mind keeps coming back to the drug war. On the larger (to my mind) point of the increasing militarism/authoritarianism of the police and those giving them orders, and voters, from Bloomberg to Officer Pudge McPepperspray to “free speech zones’, it goes much farther. Like I said, I’m far less concerned about the technology than the “safety/order at any cost” attitude of too much of the public.

  151. 151.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    @Rafer Janders: Yes, it appears the world Chet lives in is somewhat different from ours, like he came here from an alternate reality. We should ask him who’s on the 50 dollar bill.

  152. 152.

    Sly

    December 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    How many bonus points do I get for smugly noting how this thread is accompanied by an advertisement asking readers to help drop a “money bomb” on Ron Paul? I’d say five. But if it were for Alex Jones, I’d demand ten. Does he advertise through google? Maybe I should hit refresh a few times to check.

    There is no legal distrinction between a remote drone with a goddamned camera and a cop in a patrol helicopter.

  153. 153.

    FromTheBackOfTheRoom

    December 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    I’m putting up the Corner Stone bat-signal. Wading through these comments without the CS slap-downs is dispiriting. It’s hard to believe that authoritarian Cole is the nominal civil libertarian on this page. Maybe he’s already here, punking everyone with this ‘chet’ who is as cartoonishly vile a caricature of a submissive lickspittle as I can imagine.

  154. 154.

    Petorado

    December 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Kinda surprised by some of the responses saying this is no big deal.Possibly in an apolitical world it would be no big deal if the folks using this were completely rational and respected laws and civil liberties. But we seem to have forgotten that there are folks like Joe Arpaio who would be commanding such assets.

    Law enforcement is very political. Sheriffs are elected officials and other law enforcement leaders are appointed by politicians. The political influence of some “tough on crime” types might lead to egregious abuses of this technology.

    Before we give people like “casual pepper spray cop” the ability to use advanced technology in foolish ways, a healthy debate about parameters and legitimate concerns is in order. What has been done under the guise of law and order in Libya, Egypt and Syria should give us pause over here, Or is there no reason to be skeptical given how wise and completely rational those running for our highest elected office have shown themselves to be? We’ve already heard take of lethal electrified fencing, missile armed drones would be a huge applause line at the next Republican debate.

  155. 155.

    geg6

    December 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    @superking:

    Glenn Greenwald is a bit of a liar, and an ineffective advocate for his cause.

    Talk about your understatement of the year. LOL!

  156. 156.

    smintheus

    December 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    @burnspbesq: If that’s not an example of the military snooping on Americans, I don’t know what is. It’s prohibited by law, as is the use of the military to conduct domestic law enforcement except in the narrowest of circumstances.

  157. 157.

    RD

    December 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Did you miss the part where Obama said he would veto the NDAA, or do you not believe him?

    It doesn’t matter. Grudges and score-settling are the ruling dynamics of our age.

  158. 158.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    @Chet:

    (But, news flash, Heat came out in the 90’s. Around-the-clock surveillance by police is not something uniquely made possible by drones.)

    “Heat”? The movie where it took dozens of cops with handheld binoculars, racking up hundreds of hours of overtime, to do surveillance on a finite group of suspects in a limited amount of space, and they still lost track of them right before the bank heist? Yes, you’re right, that’s exactly the same as round-the-clock invisible surveillance of thousands of non-suspects by one drone remotely piloted by one person in an airconditioned office somewhere.

    The whole point is that drones — as we’ve seen in so many other areas — enable one machine to do the work that was previously done with great effort by dozens of men. And once we’ve reached that point, the tempation to just have that machine do the work all the time, and capture and distribute and hold forever all the data it finds, is going to be quite great. So we move from a world where the cops have to spend a lot of time and effort to surveil the bad guys, which means they don’t have the time or desire to surveil the random innocent person, to one in which they surveil everyone all the time.

  159. 159.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    @FromTheBackOfTheRoom: Amen.

  160. 160.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    @FromTheBackOfTheRoom:

    It’s hard to believe that authoritarian Cole is the nominal civil libertarian on this page

    seriously? are you ignoring half the comments here?

  161. 161.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    @Keith G:

    So how are police departments that can’t afford pens and radios and, you know, police going to buy drones?

    Drones don’t charge overtime. Drones don’t retire at 42 and then draw a pension for another 40 years. Drones don’t rack up healthcare costs.

  162. 162.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @gaz: But the drones can allow the Sheriff to know (as in this case) that the persons on the farm are armed or not armed at this moment, allowing him to execute his warrant without undue bloodshed.
    Functionally, this is no different than if two deputies had put on camoflage and infiltrated the farm or neighboring environs to surveil the target. And it was no less legal than doing that would have been.

  163. 163.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Did you miss the part where Obama said he would veto the NDAA, or do you not believe him?

    Did you miss the part where he wrote “After, either in this administration or the next, people can be deprived of due process and picked up and placed in bogus military terrorist justice system.”

    I bolded the relevant part for you, so you won’t miss it this time. Obama won’t be president forever.

  164. 164.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    The whole point is that drones—as we’ve seen in so many other areas—enable one machine to do the work that was previously done with great effort by dozens of men.

    And the whole point was that this was always going to happen, either as a result of drones or the result of some other technology, and if your plan was to not worry about the extent of police surveillance because it was expensive enough as to be self-limiting, then your plan sucked.

    The police should be limited by laws, not by retarding advances in technology we think they’ll take advantage of.

  165. 165.

    redshirt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: Oh, no doubt some domestic drones will be weaponized, but that doesn’t concern me. What does, and others have mentioned, is with the increasing sophistication of these drones, coupled with their reduced costs and size, it’s inevitable in 10 years or more our skies will be covered in drones. Think of insect sized devices flying everywhere across NYC, constantly monitoring.

    We’re entering a real Panopticon, and we have to draw lines now to protect any semblance of privacy, or it will be too late.

    These drones won’t just be limited to video cameras, but also audio and infrared. They will hear and see through walls – that is, there will be no such thing as Privacy anymore.

    So, “if you have nothing to hide”…. no big deal, right? But I see this is as fundamental blow to the Bill of Rights.

  166. 166.

    trollhattan

    December 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    @gaz:

    Yup, he’s such an obvious example one would think the point would make itself. Obviously, I was wrong on that last bit.

    Reminds me of Ron Paul website commenters who claim you can get rid of the EPA because pollution victims can simply sue polluters in court. Problem solved!

  167. 167.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    @Soonergrunt: Maybe so, if it weren’t a fact that there are other, less invasive ways to do the same thing – that cops have been doing for years.

    Tap a phone – do ground level recon, etc.

    You’ll have to make the case that these existing tools aren’t good enough. And, as far as I can tell, you have not made that case.

    Even *if* (big IF) one or two officers a year were lost because we didn’t use drones, it still isn’t worth erosion of our rights. As heartless as that sounds – (I really don’t want anyone put unnecessarily in harms way) I haven’t seen anyone make a compelling case that the existing tools aren’t working.

    Make that case, and we’ll have something to talk about.

    Short of that, I agree with Ben Franklin (the famous one)
    (off the top of my head:)
    “Those who are willing to trade liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

  168. 168.

    The Moar You Know

    December 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    And it was no less legal than doing that would have been.

    @Soonergrunt: And that, my friend, is the core of the problem. It should be different.

  169. 169.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    The whole “war on drugs” is pretty ineffective, doesn’t stop even Democratic pols from doubling down on it to appeal to the Grundys. With these drones, my mind keeps coming back to the drug war. On the larger (to my mind) point of the increasing militarism/authoritarianism of the police and those giving them orders, and voters, from Bloomberg to Officer Pudge McPepperspray to “free speech zones’, it goes much farther.

    And as I noted in another post here, I just find it amusing as all get out that people here are so “concerned about” the standard liberal bug bears, drones, da police, authoritarianism and encroachments to civil liberties while simultaneously demolishing every particle privacy on their Facebook pages and allowing their every movement to be tracked via their smart phones and social media apps.

    In short, while some liberals and progressives consume themselves over the War on Privacy and Civil Liberties Old Style, they seem to be be clueless about the new threats.

  170. 170.

    eemom

    December 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    So Corner Stone now has a fanclub. That is even awesomer than Cole being a hippie.

  171. 171.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    @Brachiator:

    In short, while some liberals and progressives consume themselves over the War on Privacy and Civil Liberties Old Style, they seem to be be clueless about the new threats.

    Making a pretty sweeping assumption there

  172. 172.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    @Rafer Janders: This might not actually make me any less freer, but it would/does creep me out:

    Feature recognition software is getting pretty good pretty fast. Once an image of your property is imported into a data base, it can (or someday, will) be easily linked to every other image of your property saved in the system. That might include many dozens of fly overs per year when the property was just randomly in the frame. I am pretty sure storage costs and other tech issues will keep this from being an issue in the very near future, but this will be a concern that we will deal with.

  173. 173.

    sparky

    December 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    suggestions:
    1. Openness for all!
    2. See the USA!
    3. Why worry!

    if there was a valid search warrant, then it does cast a slightly different light on the use in this instance. still, the use of military technology by the local constabulary is just not a good idea. change the drone to a drone with a missile, or a tank, and you will see the importance of not militarizing the police. thus, as that image demonstrates, the “it’s just another technology” argument badly misrepresents the issue.

    coupled with the impending militarization of the territorial US via S.1867 this is another large chunk of the security state being set into place. and no, that’s not hyperbole.

  174. 174.

    Keith G

    December 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    @eemom: But I am sure you are loved too.

  175. 175.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    @Brachiator:

    In short, while some liberals and progressives consume themselves over the War on Privacy and Civil Liberties Old Style, they seem to be be clueless about the new threats.

    Great – politics as a game of chickenshit and fear. Great way to craft policy. You know – for the children.

    It’s telling that you identify with that.

    Apparently, threats are enough to get you to give up all kinds of things.

    That said, Gimmie your lunch money or I’ll beat you up.

  176. 176.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    @gaz:

    You’ll have to make the case that these existing tools aren’t good enough. And, as far as I can tell, you have not made that case.

    This is where you would be wrong.
    I don’t have to make any case of the type. There is nothing illegal about what the Sheriff did. Why don’t you tell us what magical property of a machine makes its use illegal?

    @The Moar You Know: And why is that?
    As I’ve said before–it’s the intent behind the use of technology that should scare you, not the technology itself.
    There was a time when people worried about the increasing use of dash mounted cameras on police cars. Now it’s routine, and many people have had their claims for brutality or corruption against the police verified by those same cameras.

  177. 177.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    @gaz: I felt bad when I read those comments. I guess we are poor, poor substitutes for the mighty Corner Stone.

  178. 178.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    @Soonergrunt: Legal doesn’t mean right.

  179. 179.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    @redshirt: I guess they’ll have to hire alot of ‘Big Brother’ style functionaries to watch all that data. Good paying jobs there, I bet.

  180. 180.

    FromTheBackOfTheRoom

    December 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck:
    I can understand the Juicer vilification of Greenwald as he does tend to overwhelm you with reams of pesky facts but now you’re going to slag Pierce?! Look down. There’s a shark under you.

  181. 181.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    Probably able to get intelligence from some of the materials it was made from, etc.

    A semi-educated guess that is worth exactly what you paid for it? The coatings/materials the airframe is made from isn’t too big of a secret. The payload? Different story, but, again, it’s probably in pieces.

  182. 182.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    @redshirt: I don’t know if you’re including me in the “if you have nothing to hide” coda at the end, but FWIW I didn’t say that at any point. I’m only saying that talking about encroachments by law enforcement and the government on liberty and privacy can be done without lumping in an only tangentially-related discussion about bombs — which John’s original post and Pierce both do.

  183. 183.

    JimF

    December 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Yes on one hand it is a concern, but the sheriff obtained a warrant before deploying the drone. Personally if I was living in a sparsely populated area I’d be glad if one of these was available for search and rescue missions.

  184. 184.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    @gaz:
    Ben didn’t finish that statement.
    “Those who are willing to trade liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”…nor will they have either.

  185. 185.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    @FromTheBackOfTheRoom: I prefer Scott L. over at LGM instead of GG…

    GG is not always wrong, but it’s how he handles himself when he *is* wrong that spoiled him for me.

  186. 186.

    Paul in KY

    December 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    @The Dangerman: I heard some of the compounds they make the outer surfaces from (or coat them) were highly classified (at least of F-117 & B-2).

  187. 187.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    @gaz: And your discomfort with it doesn’t make it wrong.
    But ‘legal’ is the standard we have to work within when we talk about the functions and operations of government.

  188. 188.

    FromTheBackOfTheRoom

    December 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    @gaz:
    Nah. I appreciate the push-back that I’ve read but Corner Stone brings the pain to these douchebags like no one else. Witness the execrable eemom’s obsession with CS.

  189. 189.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    @gaz:

    are you ignoring half the comments here?

    People like to imagine that their side is being overwhelmed and only a few brave bedraggled holdouts still believe in the pure American values everyone used to take for granted. No, wait, that’s “Red Dawn.”

  190. 190.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    @Soonergrunt: If that were true, this blog wouldn’t have much content.

    If you want to argue the ins and outs of the legality of something, there are plenty of law blogs.

    This ain’t one.

    And your retreat behind the law is telling. You are OBVIOUSLY reaching (or maybe dodging) by trying to frame this entire discussion within the bounds of legality.

    I usually see this kind of tact from white-supremecists/nativists when they argue for supporting our immigration status quo (or making it worse). What’s your excuse? I kind of expected better from you.

  191. 191.

    ericblair

    December 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    @sparky:

    change the drone to a drone with a missile, or a tank, and you will see the importance of not militarizing the police.

    Wut? Change a “speed camera” to a “heat-seeking missile” and you’ll see the importance of not militarizing the police, too? Aren’t we kind of making shit up here?

    Militarizing the police means SWAT teams, heavier weapons, military tactics, and disproportionate force. It means allowing their rules of engagement to include indiscriminate use of “non-lethal” weaponry without a clear threat. Which toys they’re using is just a distraction. You can do way more police brutality with a broomstick then a flying camera.

  192. 192.

    Samara Morgan

    December 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    /yawn

    like Julian said, America is going to become a police state on its way to non-linear system collapse.
    and sooner might know this…..we have spied on on our OWN citizens FOR YEARS.
    we just classify it.
    ;)

  193. 193.

    redshirt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: No, I did not mean you. And I’m not at all concerned about weaponization of drones, since the consequences of using those weapons are obvious and fairly well governed by existing protocols.

    The monitoring has me concerned.

    Consider as mentioned above – facial recognition software that can spot you out of a crowd of thousands. There is no more privacy at all in this scenario. None. With omnipresent drones and the ability to automatically track you across different monitoring environments, there is no escape. No human intervention required either – the computer programs will be smart enough to do the tracking.

  194. 194.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    @Samara Morgan: It was arguably better when it was classified. At least there was an atmosphere of “we know what we are doing is wrong, so we have to hide it”. I feel the same way about extraordinary rendition.

    Making it operate out in the open serves to overly legitimize things like this (see soonergrunt, for an example of the effect)- and accelerates our slip into a surveillance state.

  195. 195.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    @Brachiator: I forget which stand-up it was, maybe Carlin, who said something like “Americans are all paranoid about their privacy, but they’d swap a DNA sample for a free cup of frozen yogurt.” Maybe I’m naive, but I’m not really worried about myself here. To be blunt, I’m white and affluent. As you suggest, I’m at far greater risk of identity theft from the computer I’m on now than I am of ever finding myself on the wrong end of a government gun or even handcuffs.
    I’m more bothered by the fact that people like Joe Arpaio can get elected, or that millions of people will vote against Obama next year because he’s ‘soft on terror’, or that a (Democratic) Senator says we have to keep Gitmo open or else terrorists will be roaming the streets of Billings and Helena, or Charleston and Beaufort. And these Senators are treated as Very Serious Foreign Policy/Security (and I as I type that, I’m bothered by the fact that those two terms are so close to interchangeable in our political discourse) experts by the media.

  196. 196.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    @redshirt:

    No human intervention required either – the computer programs will be smart enough to do the tracking.

    And your termination notice could be in your mailbox before you’ve spent 10 minutes at the OWS gathering, if the 1% are worried that their interests are threatened.

  197. 197.

    Anya

    December 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    What I don’t understand is why using predetory drones in US soil isn’t a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

  198. 198.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    @Anya: I suppose because they are being operated by PD’s and not military (or am I wrong?)

    If they are being piloted (over US soil) by our military, particularly, under the color of active duty, then I definitely share your confusion.

    As I understand, Posse Comitatus should make that illegal. But then again, maybe there’s a loophole. *shrug*- even so, they would be violating the spirit, if not the letter of the law, I’d think.

  199. 199.

    dmbeaster

    December 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Cole needs to refocus his thinking, cause knee jerk fussing about drones is akin to similar anti-technology rants, and just as pointless.
    The real point here is that ongoing technological developments constantly erode privacy simply because they can. Or maybe its about nonsensical militarization of police functions, although that does not really apply to drones in the same way a grenade launcher does — see the referenced Pierce article.
    The focus of concern should not be about the technology, but about the rules we adopt in order to adapt to new technology and preserve our values. If drones make it possible for cheap 24/7 aerial surveillance for the hell of it, then make that the point of your concern, and outlaw it. Not some luddite nonsense ranting about the latest technological bell and whistle.

  200. 200.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    @Soonergrunt:
    You are correct that the technology is not the problem, the usage is the problem. But when the mechanism for redress takes longer and is much less effective than the mechanism allowing for failure of that government due to the usage of that technology then people should worry about both.

  201. 201.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    @Ruckus: For the record, I have no problem with the technology either. It’s about the misuse.

    I definitely have a problem with the law, whether it came about due to the law not being updated to reflect additional concerns the new technology brings, or whether the law is actually being crafted to allow for it. One way or another it’s wrong.

    My problem with soonergrunt’s position, is that he seems to be arguing that because it’s legal, it’s okay. Well, it’s not.

  202. 202.

    Anya

    December 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    @gaz: But why would a police force have a military weapon. I agree with your last point.

    Also, I share Cole’s concern. For the past 10-years, little by little, the government has been chipping away at our rights, and we have become ammune to it.

  203. 203.

    Marci Kiser

    December 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    @sparky: But if you change the heat-seeking missile to a robot, and the robot to a Terminator, and the Terminator to a Wizard Terminator, then you will see the importance of not only watching movies in the 80s, but also avoiding the inevitable Potterization of our Terminators.

  204. 204.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    @gaz:
    You could probably drive quite a large military force through that hole, if the wiki is to be believed.

  205. 205.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    @gaz:

    If that were true, this blog wouldn’t have much content.
    If you want to argue the ins and outs of the legality of something, there are plenty of law blogs. This ain’t one.

    This is a blog where we talk about the Pittsburgh Steelers, Megan McArdle’s kitchen appliances, and various other things like skull fucking kittens, including actual laws from time to time. Get over yourself.

    And your retreat behind the law is telling. You are OBVIOUSLY reaching (or maybe dodging) by trying to frame this entire discussion within the bounds of legality.
    I usually see this kind of tact from white-supremecists/nativists when they argue for supporting our immigration status quo (or making it worse). What’s your excuse? I kind of expected better from you.

    Wow. Dude–your complaint is that this drone thing feels wrong to you and therefore we shouldn’t do it? And that’s the whole of your argument? Really?
    So now pointing out that the actions of governments have to be discussed in a legal context makes me a white supremacist? And you actually hit the (submit) button after you typed that? Really? Are you out of your fucking mind? Is that you, Glenn?
    Put on your big boy pants and make an argument other than “I want it to be illegal so you’re a racist if you disagree” you stupid emo motherfucker. Since making an actual argument that addresses the actual issue here seems to be beyond your emotional state at the moment, why don’t you just throw out a casual Nazi invocation so that you can go full Godwin and end the thread?
    God forbid you would actually make a real argument.

    @gaz:

    For the record, I have no problem with the technology either. It’s about the misuse.

    Which is exactly what I’ve been saying, and nothing else, you stupid bastard. Where have I EVER said that I was OK with it? Only that it was legal, and that if you didn’t like that you have to change the law.

  206. 206.

    Gustopher

    December 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I’ll be worried when corporations start employing drones to track and identify key market segments that they want to advertise to.

  207. 207.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    @ericblair: ISTM that the word “drone” is cluttering things up by carrying connotations of “flying death robots.” John and Pierce were both doing that. I don’t think it helps the argument, which is at heart about surveillance and privacy that happen, in this case, to be associated with a particular device.

  208. 208.

    wrb

    December 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I suppose because they are being operated by PD’s and not military (or am I wrong?)

    The black helicopters routinely used in anti-pot efforts since the 1988 drug bill have usually been National Guard, with National Guard pilots (I’ve run into the crews at airports, gearing up & talking about their busts).

    In the name of these objectives, the United States has seen a gradual insertion of its armed forces into the war on drugs since the 1980s.
    __
    As an example, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1989 gives the Department of Defense responsibility for certain aspects of drug enforcement, including Detection and Monitoring (D&M)and C3I (“command-control-communications-intelligence”, a military term for the integration of the various procedures for commanding operations). This Act also authorizes the use of the National Guard in drug enforcement. Title 10 US Code, chapter 18, gives guidance for the use of the armed forces in law enforcement. The armed forces are prohibited from direct search, seizure and arrest, unless authorized by law.
    __
    Joint Counterdrug Operations (Joint Publication 3-07.4, 9 August 1994, published by the Department of Defense) states that the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, does not apply to the National Guard in state service. The issue of state service is somewhat clouded by the fact that drug enforcement may be a federal mission, and that federal funds are used extensively to support the National Guard.
    __
    Authorization for use of federal military forces in drug enforcement comes from Title 32 US Code, which effectively frees the armed forces from some of the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act. The armed forces have been made responsible for supporting law enforcement operations within the United States. This support includes virtually everything short of actual search, seizure and arrest. Missions include:
    __
    Intelligence support: provision of linguists for translations; conduct of intelligence analysis; analysis of data.
    Communications: provision of equipment and support.
    Logistics: provision of transport, helicopters and other aircraft; supply, maintenance, etc.
    Cargo and mail inspection at points of entry into the United States (which are generally not covered by Constitutional restrictions on search and seizure).
    Training of law enforcement personnel in military skills related to drug enforcement.
    Reconnaissance: including aerial observation, sensors and ground surveillance.
    This sort of change represent a radical break with past practice, where the military was used for law enforcement only in emergency situations. We are taking war time measures, but is it actually a war we are waging? First, a look at the objectives.

    http://www.drcnet.org/military/

  209. 209.

    LongHairedWeirdo

    December 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    I mostly agree with you. Frankly, I’d like it so no cop wants to use these drones because of the mountains of paperwork that it requires, and the pants-pissing fear people have of fucking up the paperwork and maybe going to jail.

    But I’m in a cynical mood this afternoon, and I don’t feel like it matters what I want or think in this matter. I think it’ll happen, and people won’t even be pants-pissing-scared if they misuse them to investigate prostitution cases (“but we had to make sure that we had evidence of them in flagrante delicto! We were *then* going to investigate whether money changed hands!”).

  210. 210.

    B W Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    @gaz: I think the article linked in the original Cole post on this topic stated the drones came from Border Patrol. I don’t think this was a case of military involvement and I seriously doubt this Sheriff’s Department has their own. So I don’t think this was a violation of Posse Comitatus.

  211. 211.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    @Anya: The police have been gearing up like mercs at least since 9/11 (if not before, since reagan’s war on drugs, maybe… so I’m not surprised.

    I wish they’d back off of the race to militarization, but I don’t know how to stop them.

    At this point, I’d just like to see my right to privacy remain intact.

    As far as limiting funding of my local PD if they get out of hand (they haven’t really, where I live) – well that’s a fight I can take on at a local level. Especially since our community doesn’t have money to give the PD tanks. Thank god for small favors.

  212. 212.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    @gaz: Not quite so clear, according to Greenwald

    These Predator drones are based at Grand Forks Air Force Base and are owned by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. Although the FBI, DEA and other federal agencies have used Predator drones on U.S. soil for years for surveillance purposes, and although local police have used other types of drones, this is the first time Predators have been used by law enforcement to apprehend suspects.

    So, this machine was owned by the US Air Force, but operated by the ND State Police SWAT team? and the precedent of Customs, FBI, etc operating them means it passes Posse Comitatus?

  213. 213.

    khead

    December 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Maybe Charles Pierce can talk some sense into you.

    Nope. Nothing new here. Charles just sounds like some of the dumbasses I argued with here at BJ last night.

    But, but…….Drones!

  214. 214.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @B W Smith: Well that clears that up. Thanks (And thank god for that.)

    I’ve had a rather large problem with our border patrol situation for as long as I can recall.

    Maybe we should take the ire to our broken immigration laws. Quite possibly if we had some successes on that front, this situation would have never occurred.

  215. 215.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @dmbeaster:
    Is it better to rend your garments about each piece of technology and it’s misuse as those misuses come to pass? Or is it possibly better to have the discussion about the misuse of all new (and maybe the old) technology even if one has to use a particular piece of new technology as the focal point?

  216. 216.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @Ruckus: And what would you do?
    Because the only effective mechanism of which I am aware, short of armed revolution, is to change the law.

  217. 217.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @Soonergrunt: Demonstrations help. As does voting assholes out of office.

    It’s not a quick thing, but it can work.

  218. 218.

    eemom

    December 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    @FromTheBackOfTheRoom:

    you’re a buffoon.

  219. 219.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Jim, being the literalist, you should know that:

    These Predator drones are based at Grand Forks Air Force Base and are owned by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

    (taken from your very own blockquote) does not mean, as you assert, that the drones are owned by the USAF, but by the CBP service.

  220. 220.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    @Soonergrunt:
    Once again I agree with you in concept but I’m pretty sure that trying to have an intelligent discussion on privacy and police powers can only happen in the context of use of technology, given our current political reality.

  221. 221.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    @wrb: @wrb: RE: In short, while some liberals and progressives consume themselves over the War on Privacy and Civil Liberties Old Style, they seem to be be clueless about the new threats.

    Making a pretty sweeping assumption there

    Yawn. No more than what happens on this and other blogs 24 hours a day.

    @gaz:

    Great – politics as a game of chickenshit and fear. Great way to craft policy. You know – for the children. It’s telling that you identify with that. Apparently, threats are enough to get you to give up all kinds of things.

    That’s funny. I didn’t invoke any “think of the children” crap in any post here, or anywhere else. In fact, I think I’ve been pretty clear.

    So you got people here whining about how drones may spy on you tomorrow while the telcos, Apple and google are fumbling all over themselves to dismantle Carrier IQ and other stuff that has been quietly spying on you for who knows how long. And Mark Zuckerberg is apologizing for Facebook settings that violate your privacy while coming up with new Facebook settings to violate your privacy.

    Who needs drones when somebody can punch a button and dump the entire contents of your smart phone or computer, or when people broadcast their own location, complete with photographs and video?

  222. 222.

    gaz

    December 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Nah, see my reply to BWSmith. My post was based on an assumption, and was more questioning than hard statement of fact. Maybe I didn’t include enough question marks.

    At any rate, BWS kindly corrected me on this. Still, I don’t like it. Some of these federal agencies need to be put in check.

    Sadly with guys like Alito and esp Clarence Thomas on the bench at SCOTUS, they’ve got a free pass. Anyone challenges them, and they can just keep appealing, until it gets to the SC, where they know their boyz will take a steaming shit on our civil liberties, and wipe up w/ our BoR… so it’s kind of a lose lose if you happen to be a citizen.

    sad. but true.

    adding, why isn’t Clarence gone on ethics violations yet? Oh yeah – because Wiener wagged his Wiener. Fuck.

  223. 223.

    B W Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Since you phased your response as questions, I’m not sure what you are saying about Greenwald’s quote. But even his quote says it is owned by Customs/Border Patrol and not the military. The drone is based there, possibly under a maintenance contract? I don’t know if Border Patrol has qualified drone operators; so, in fact, they may contract with the military to operate them. Alas, another slippery slope.

  224. 224.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    December 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    @Soonergrunt: you’re right– reading comprehension fail on my part

  225. 225.

    Peter

    December 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Maybe if you want to make a stand against the government encroaching on privacy and the militarization of the police, perhaps you should stop obsessing over the technology used (like this and your previous post breathlessly pointing out that a drone! was involved when really nobody in their right mind would object to this particular use of the tech in itself) and instead focus on advocating for rules on how they can implement the technology, and enforcement methods for the same.

  226. 226.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    @Ruckus: I agree 100% But from my perspective, the law needs to keep pace with technology–which ain’t easy with the doofuses (doofi?) in Congress, but I see no reason why a cleanly crafted bill cannot be created, sponsored, and voted on, even in this environment.
    And again, we either go for the full fix, or it’s nothing more than a bunch of smoke-filled coffee-house crap.

  227. 227.

    Brachiator

    December 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I forget which stand-up it was, maybe Carlin, who said something like “Americans are all paranoid about their privacy, but they’d swap a DNA sample for a free cup of frozen yogurt.” Maybe I’m naive, but I’m not really worried about myself here. To be blunt, I’m white and affluent. As you suggest, I’m at far greater risk of identity theft from the computer I’m on now than I am of ever finding myself on the wrong end of a government gun or even handcuffs.

    Really? Boy you people can be a bunch of dopes.

    Are you socially or politically active? You got a smart phone? You blog? You participate in an “Occupy Wall St” type of event? Your cyber life could be useful or a threat. You send a Tweet that you are going to a demonstration. Your Tweet and you get intercepted by the cops. This would be useful, for example, in the preparation to shut down Occupy LA, were a force of sheriff deputies were at the Union Station Gold Line platform clearly profiling people who might have been on their way to City Hall (and this ain’t just from news reports, but from personal observations).

    The corporatists write laws letting Facebook sell your shit to anyone they want. Your nice Facebook page provides a great deal of information that an insurance company could use, even with health care reform, to raise your rates, deny you benefits. Some employers already have tried to demand that current and prospective employers give them access to social media sites.

    There are few things more risible than the complacent mantra “I’m white and affluent.”

  228. 228.

    Ugh.

    December 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    “If you do not live within 400 nautical miles of a military airfield, then you have nothing to fear…Look over there! It’s Lindsay Lohan!!!”

  229. 229.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    @gaz: You mean like the anti-war demonstrations in 2004 against the invasion of Iraq? Because from where I stood at the time, in Iraq, they really didn’t work all that well. Oh, I know, the OWS demonstrations–surely those have…not moved the needle on the Glass-Steagall renewal or getting money out of politics, at all.
    Yeah, we could vote the bastards out! And then what? Maybe magical ponies will deliver your drone ban.
    Or you could try to get a law that bans the use of drone aircraft for law enforcement.

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: happens to the best of us.

  230. 230.

    jl

    December 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    @burnspbesq: I guess I missed the part where Obama is going to be president forever. There is little evidence the nature of the Senate will change.

  231. 231.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    @Peter: Careful now. Some dumbass will think you’re a white supremacist for coming up with an actual, working idea that addresses more than this one sub-issue of the interface of the citizenry and the government’s police powers in the modern world.

  232. 232.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    @Peter: I think there’s a legitimate set of worries about military equipment — like armored vehicles and heavier weaponry — trickling down into local policing. But in this case the military origins of the equipment don’t feel nearly as significant when compared to the idea of making surveillance easier and more casual.

    Even then, the real worry would seem to be about using surveillance in a preemptive or precautionary way, using it to gather intelligence and pre-identify potential suspects, rather than to follow those already identified as suspects through conventional policing. The former is where Big Brother and Minority Report become apropos. It’d be like the difference between warrantless wiretapping and wiretapping with a warrant.

  233. 233.

    Joel

    December 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    That thread was child’s play compared to some around these parts.

  234. 234.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    @Soonergrunt:
    I think the law needs to get back to basics and be inclusive of all new technology (and more important, it’s usage) but then I’m a dreamer.
    A new law to limit police/surveillance power? In the congress we have now? We can’t get them to vote on allowing a new boss to a new agency they authorized.
    My dreams are not close to that fanciful.

  235. 235.

    The Dangerman

    December 12, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    @Paul in KY:

    I heard some of the compounds they make the outer surfaces from (or coat them) were highly classified (at least of F-117 & B-2).

    They were a big secret until a 117 crash in Yugoslavia; basically, the surface technology is 25 years old and probably been copied by now.

  236. 236.

    Winston Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    @Keith G:

    Drone signals have already been hacked.

    We’re talking about taking control of a drone. That hasn’t been done.

    Try to keep up.

  237. 237.

    Winston Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    @Ruckus:

    A new law to limit police/surveillance power?

    How about a Constitutional Amendment? Give it a nice low number, like “4”.

  238. 238.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    @Winston Smith:
    Sure, you bring that up!

    So how is it that we have the Patriot Act? And it keeps getting reauthorized?

  239. 239.

    LT

    December 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    By the “commetariat” you mean ABL, too, yeah?

    Well done, also, too.

  240. 240.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    @Anya:

    What I don’t understand is why using predetory drones in US soil isn’t a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

    These Predator drones were operated by the Border Patrol. But it doesn’t violate Posse Comitatus for military aircraft to operate over the United States, because air superiority is not widely recognized as a function of law enforcement.

  241. 241.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    @Winston Smith: Yeah–because the courts have NEVER considered surveillance technology in light of the fourth amendment in 223 years.
    How about we don’t count on people and governments using the interpretation we think they should use, and write laws that explicitly describe what’s permissible?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Because I don’t see how using a drone to determine that people who were subject to arrest (the whole pointing-guns-at-the-Sheriff-serving-a-warrant thing established the probable cause to enter and arrest in this case) would be a violation of the 4th amendment.
    Now, if we go hypothetical, the use of drones to determine that somebody was growing pot on their own property in an area that couldn’t be seen from the roads–that could actually be an issue. Is it legal to do so from a helicopter? If it is, why? And What would make it illegal to do so from a drone?

  242. 242.

    blondie

    December 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Too many comments to read them all, but has anyone yet quoted Ben Franklin — “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    Also, Posse Comitatus Act?

  243. 243.

    Chet

    December 12, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Also, Posse Comitatus Act?

    Which, amazingly, doesn’t apply to the Border Patrol operating a flying camera within the United States.

    Oh, I get it. You heard that a flying robot camera was “a military weapon” and figured that, somehow, Posse Comitatus – which you only know about because it was on The West Wing – was something you could throw around to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about.

  244. 244.

    blondie

    December 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    My god, that was a snotty response.

  245. 245.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    If you can’t tell the difference between the NYPD and the United States Army, why should I pay attention to anything you say?

  246. 246.

    burnspbesq

    December 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    @Rafer Janders:

    Nope, I didn’t miss the reference to the “next” Administration. You missed the blindingly obvious point that the next Administration will be the Obama Administration that takes office in 2013.

    You’re out of your depth. Go away.

  247. 247.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    @burnspbesq:
    Isn’t one of the points of this discussion that there is becoming less and less of a difference between the US military and civilian police? Or, is it OK to have police be equipped, trained and deployed like the military but we don’t care because their names are different?

  248. 248.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    @blondie:
    Not reading the whole thread might lead you to believe that snotty was unusual.

  249. 249.

    LT

    December 12, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    @Ruckus: One of the differences pertinent to the decision to not allow U.S. military to act in the U.S. was federal control, no? [god, that remains a stupid sentence. I’m sorry. Differences with police, I mean.]

    That said, people who don’t have a problem with this I can only guess had the parts of their brains cut out that deal with remembering any instances of police abuse of power.

    I can’t wait for Rampart II: The Drone Wars.

  250. 250.

    vernon

    December 12, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    You see, it IS a dystopian fantasy, John Cole, because (1) the sheriff had a warrant and (2) Glenn Greenwald is shrill. YAWN!

  251. 251.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    @Soonergrunt:
    In your hypothetical, would it be illegal for a copter to be flying from point A to point B to see what appears to be pot growing and take action? The pot would be in plain sight. If the flight was a “routine” flight not there specifically to spot pot on a particular piece of property, a warrant could then be obtained and executed. Would there be a violation of the 4th? I think not or at least the argument could easily be made. Change pot to armed revolutionaries. Make the copter a drone and tell me what is a “routine” flight? What is in plain sight? At least the copter can have other functions, like carrying cargo/people. It may be used as a surveillance tool (see the comments about Los Angeles) but it has other uses. A drone is for searching and if so equipped, destroying.

    How do we accommodate the 4th in a modern world? I want the police/fire to be effective but I also want them to be respectful of the rights of the people. I’m pretty sure giving them a lot of modern and yes military equipment will result in the people losing those rights, bit by ever increasing bit, as we have already seen.

  252. 252.

    The Moar You Know

    December 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Or, is it OK to have police be equipped, trained and deployed like the military but we don’t care because their names are different?

    @Ruckus: If our police were half as well trained as our military I’d rest a lot easier at night.

    Our military takes pains to not shoot the wrong people and there are usually some fairly serious consequences when they do. Police? Blank check. They can shoot anyone they want secure in the knowledge that not a goddamn thing will ever happen to them.

  253. 253.

    HyperIon

    December 12, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    JC wrote:

    Since that last thread had me as disgusted as I’ve ever been with the commentariat here…

    Hmm. I myself have been disgusted at the commentariat here for a while. Because they will not shut up…regardless of the inanity of their comments. I know that’s not your beef. (But it IS your fault!)

  254. 254.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    @LT:
    I believe you are correct about federal control. My contention is that modern police communications and coordination has changed the reality of that separation.

  255. 255.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    @The Moar You Know:
    Good catch.

    I did say like, not as well.
    How high up does that responsibility actually go in the military? Not that high up as far as I have seen. Didn’t Pudgy McPepper get fired from UCD? Was he acting on his own initiative? Or on orders?

  256. 256.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    @The Moar You Know:
    Our military takes pains to not shoot the wrong people and there are usually some fairly serious consequences when they do.
    Drone wedding attacks?

  257. 257.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Um, you can’t seem to tell the difference. Smintheus said he didn’t want soldiers patrolling inside the US. You, in response, called that “a dystopian fantasy.” However, there are in fact soldiers — not just NYPD — patrolling inside Grand Central (and Penn Station). They are in camouflage battle gear and they carry assault rifles — they are military. They are not part of the NYPD.

  258. 258.

    Rafer Janders

    December 12, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Jesus, you’re an idiot. He wrote “After, either in this administration or the next, people can be deprived of due process and picked up and placed in bogus military terrorist justice system.”

    So you’re claiming that you were technically right because if Obama is re-elected, the “next” administration will be the Obama 2013-2017 administration? And that we shouldn’t, y’know, use “the next administration” the way all normal people use it, to mean the next president?

    So to you, there was Bush Administration I (2001-2005) and Bush Administration II (2005-2009), rather than just the Bush administration followed by the Obama administration?

    But you know, I don’t think you really believe this. You made a mistake because of your poor reading comprehension, you were called out on it, but because you’re such a puffed-up blowhard, rather than gracefully admitting a mistake and moving on you have to resort to Alice in Wonderland like twists to claim that words mean only what you want ’em to, not what everyone else knows them to mean.

  259. 259.

    FuzzyWuzzy

    December 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    @Chet: Already been done. Tulsa 1921. All ready for digital innovation, cutting labor costs and increasing productivity and efficiency. Skynet is go.

  260. 260.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    @blondie:

    Too many comments to read them all, but has anyone yet quoted Ben Franklin—“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
    —
    Also, Posse Comitatus Act?

    Had you read the whole thing, you’d have seen about three or four people quoting that particular Franklinism.
    Also, too, Posse Commitatus does not apply here because the drone was operated by the Department of Customs and Border Protection, not the Title X regular military.

  261. 261.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    @Ruckus: A CPB drone enroute to its assigned patrol area on the border (patrolling the border for security and customs enforcement being a legitimate government operation) records some illegal activity while the operator is testing the imaging systems and this is discovered later from the digital feed? Can the data be forwarded to the relevant jurisdiction?
    What about an area search pursuant to a warrant? Can an LEA get a warrant that might authorize such?
    How about diverting a CBP drone from its assigned patrol to assist local LE in a credible threat situation as happened here? You don’t honestly think that would be illegal do you? If Customs had sent one of their Blackhawk helicopters, a piece of military equipment if there ever was one, to search with its FLIR and even used it to insert Sheriff’s Deputies onto the property, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

  262. 262.

    Katie

    December 12, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    @Soonergrunt, you are correct that Posse Commitatus doesn’t apply because it wasn’t military. There are plenty of folks that believe it applies to federal agencies in general though (I’m not one of them).

    There’s a lot of bad information in the comments. Predator costs a lot more than $7k an hour to operate. A LOT more.

    There is indeed a mountain of paperwork to do to be able to fly these, and it’s really difficult and time consuming to get permission from the FAA to fly them outside of restricted airspace. You can’t just pop one up for any reason and fly around.

  263. 263.

    LT

    December 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    Our military takes pains to not shoot the wrong people and there are usually some fairly serious consequences when they do.

    Wow.

  264. 264.

    LT

    December 12, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    Our military takes pains to not shoot the wrong people and there are usually some fairly serious consequences when they do.

    The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don’t count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging.

  265. 265.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    @Soonergrunt:
    All of these situations are reasons we need to have a public discussion about them. Some people seem to trust the government. I am not one of them. It’s not that I don’t think most people in the government have good/great intentions. It is that I believe we need controls on the government to keep it from becoming totally non responsive to it’s citizens. Sort of the way so many of our corporate masters have pretty much become non responsive/destructive to the people paying the bills, much of it legally done, once the laws were changed.
    To answer your questions directly, I don’t know. These kinds of things take more than 5 blog minutes to work out. There are problems on both sides of any answers. I feel the balance needs to run in the direction of peoples rights. If that hamstrings the cops, well then it does, and I’m OK with that.

  266. 266.

    4jkb4ia

    December 12, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    @FromTheBackOfTheRoom:

    authoritarian Cole

    This mean slander canard has been utterly and repeatedly disproved, going back to Miers, I think. “Authoritarian” means “Authority right or wrong”/”I trust the president right or wrong”.

    @eemom:

    I realized this was home when I was a little worried that Corner Stone might be dead and was relieved to see him. Another such realization came when I was reading one of the old Kagan threads and said, “Corner Stone, this is one of the best things you ever posted on this blog”. You get to know people, even when you barely agree with a word they say, and sometimes flinch at the things they say.

    Gut reaction to original post:

    Since the last thing I posted about drones was about their being used as a border patrol in North Dakota/Minnesota where it wasn’t convenient for humans to do it, and that was experimental, and the post that described those things was last year, you can see the slippery slope beginning to occur just with what John posted about. I agree with everyone that regard for civil liberties is more of an issue than whether drone technology is used. We trust the NSA with technology we are not supposed to understand as long as it is turned on agents of a foreign power. But Eric Holder deserved applause for trying to say that in the matter of trials, law enforcement work and military work are different things and both have their place. The use of drones means that law enforcement work with all of its safeguards of citizens’ rights is coming closer and closer to military work in how it looks and what it is able to do. That should frighten people.

  267. 267.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    December 12, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    One day we will see police/sheriff/state patrol and various other law enforcement drones cruising at low altitudes, on patrol for anyone doing anything wrong.

    Just like cops do in their cars today. Hey, it’s progress! Equip those law drones with the proper gear to disperse crowds (tear gas and MIRVing tazer bombs anyone?) and say it keeps law enforcement personnel safer, reducing medical and insurance costs (read: larger insurance company profits!).

    Because that’s where we are heading people. Using the logic our country operates under now, there’s no reason for law enforcement to not be using drones as a supplement to patrolling officers.

    None. We are that fucked up.

  268. 268.

    rageahol

    December 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    @superking: A helicopter, you have some sense of who it belongs to, and who is controlling it. what their authority to do so is based in. a reasonable chance of identifying it as, e.g. a police, or as a Sky4 traffic copter.

    a drone could be controlled by anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and flies high enough that you could very well miss it. not that you could identify it if you noticed it.

  269. 269.

    B W Smith

    December 12, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    @4jkb4ia: I agree with the gist of your remarks. It is and should be a concern that technology has the capability of diminishing our rights. I think the problem over these last two threads has been that this particular situation hasn’t been a really good example for that slippery slope argument. The drone was not owned by the police force, the sheriff had a search warrant, and there was a positive outcome with no bloodshed. All of the slippery slope arguments are not as strong in this particular situation. It doesn’t change the fact that the situation of making such technology and other military goodies available to use against US citizens in their everyday lives is something about which there should be a true national conversation. We really need to adjust our laws to catch up with technology and set limits that are not easy to circumvent.

  270. 270.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    @Katie: As I posted earlier, the Department of Customs and Border Protection says that they cost $3,240/hour to operate.
    That’s still not cheap. But it is competitive on an hourly basis with many manned platforms, and the drones don’t get sick or go on vacation.
    If this work were being done by manned platforms, very few people would have even noticed. Well, these drones do not operate without people watching everything that happens from a control facility.

  271. 271.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    @rageahol: So you’ve seen the new Coca-Cola(tm) predator drones, have you?

  272. 272.

    Soonergrunt

    December 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    @Ruckus: I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here.

  273. 273.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Someone said cheap drones? Here is one use of drones in a country far away. Civilians in Moscow are using drones.

  274. 274.

    Ruckus

    December 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    @B W Smith:
    It is and should be a concern that technology has the capability of diminishing our rights.

    The nutshell is now full.

  275. 275.

    4jkb4ia

    December 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    @B W Smith:

    Thanks. The slippery slope is really that it was being used by everyday law enforcement in such a short time.

  276. 276.

    Katie

    December 12, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    @Soonergrunt: It makes me wonder what CBP is leaving out of that cost figure. I worked with the Predator platform for a number of years, and that’s a really really low figure. Now I work with smaller platforms but they’re still expensive to operate.

    Law enforcement has been using drones for a while now, but they usually use much smaller ones. They makes sense for a lot of LE purposes.

  277. 277.

    pattonbt

    December 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    In this instance, per the facts of this case, I am perfectly fine with the use of the drone and it seemed to perform it’s desired outcome flawlessly (reducing a potenailly dangerous and fatal situation to one easily handled by local law enforcement).

    Rural areas need, in rare circumstances, surveilance like this – both from a negative aspect (criminal surveilance) and positive aspects (search). So using a drone can make sense.

    The drone isn’t the issue, it’s the people who use them and use them for violations of civil rights. This case is in no way a violation of civil rights, and in my opinion, a fantastic use of technology.

    Sure, these drones could be used for all sorts of nefarious and illegal surveilance activities, and when that happens, we should be all over it, but their use in and of itself should not be an issue.

    I have no problem with people also being at the forefront pointing out how the use of drones could be used illegally and I have no issue with agitating for clear and concise rules and regulations for their use. But this case, this case we are discussing is meh.

  278. 278.

    Donut

    December 12, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    As I read this thread and the other one John Cole started on this topic, all I can think it, “who the fuck needs right wing Republicans to shit all over our civil liberties?”

    Apparently, plenty of ‘liberals’ seem all too happy to provide endless rationalizations for this bullshit.

    Yes, a warrant was obtained in this specific instance. Good. I’m truly happy the sheriff took that step. Kind of important.

    But in case you haven’t noticed, not every person running law enforcement agencies are always the ‘good guys’. That is not to say all cops are bad, not even close. But this has so much potential for abuse. If all you can say in response to this is, basically, “wake me up when something abusive actually happens,” – well, sorry, but that’s too fucking late. What needs to happen? Somebody dies? Somebody gets railroaded and sent to jail for something they didn’t do? Tech seems to make it easier and easier to just shoot ’em all and let god sort ’em out, but gosh, I kind of think our system isn’t really designed to function like that. We need to see the forest through the fucking trees, no? Police and prosecutors abuse their powers all the time (again, not all, but this shit happens a lot), and there is very little accountability.

    I’d rather we fucking have it out over this stuff now before we get all the way down the road to where it’s too late to rein in inevitable abuses of power.

  279. 279.

    pattonbt

    December 13, 2011 at 12:26 am

    @Donut: But I think most people saying “meh” in this case aren’t saying “joy of joy’s we should abuse drones! Down with civil liberties!”.

    The police, in this case, acted exactly as they should have, used the resources exactly as they should have and proved that this technology can be used for good. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I applaud them for getting a good outcome.

    I think everyone here can easily dream of scenarios where this can be abused to some pretty nasty ends. But those abuses are not about the tech, but about the people who employ them and they are the abuses that have been going on for eternity with humans – state / police abuse of power. Thats the issue. Not the use of drones.

    Anything can be abused by those in power. But as long as “good” procedure (i.e. warrants, etc.) is used to employ the tech and the tech / power used doesnt break the law, then I go “meh”.

    “The Man” has been cheating since the beginning of time and he should always be fought when he abuses his position, but that is what you fight, not the tools employed (with I am sure many clarifications like torture, etc.).

    So define the rules for use of this tech and then hold their feet to the fire when they try and use it.

  280. 280.

    FlipYrWhig

    December 13, 2011 at 12:34 am

    People are going to be really upset when they find out about the fleet of surveillance zeppelins.

  281. 281.

    lol chikinburd

    December 13, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Surveillance zeppelins would be a million times cooler. We don’t have enough zeppelins anymore.

  282. 282.

    moderateindy

    December 13, 2011 at 3:18 am

    I guess this drone story doesn’t upset me much because I think the slippery slope argument has little worth in this case. Why? because I think if we were to turn around and look back we would realize that 90 percent of that slope is behind us, and were damn close to the bottom of the hill when it comes to this area. Honestly, I was alarmed back in the day when the powers that be started doing little things, like raiding kids lockers and doing searches any time they wanted, or employing drug dogs in the schools. Also, the random road blockades that stopped everyone for safety or DUI checks. I was alarmed because these things seemed like they were designed to get people use to the idea that the gov’t didn’t need things like warrants or probable cause to subject its citizens to intrusion.
    We’ve been quickly careening down that slope for twenty years. Patriot act certainly the main culprit, but cameras everywhere, easy collection of consumer info via store computers, the net and RFD chips etc etc. It seems we have crossed that Rubicon a while ago, and I realized that most Americans are either oblivious to how little privacy they now have, or are troglodytes that employ the “if you aren’t doing anything wrong” meme.
    I guess I can’t rage about it because there seems to be no use. It was like raging against income inequality and corporate greed in the 90’s. Few felt the pain, so they couldn’t see the long term danger.
    And maybe I’m just desensitized to it. Maybe it’s hard to summon outrage that somebody isn’t feeding their cat tonight, when you just watched a week’s worth of some degenerate regularly kicking his dog and no one giving a crap about it.

  283. 283.

    LongHairedWeirdo

    December 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Surveillance zeppelins would be a million times cooler. We don’t have enough zeppelins anymore.

    If we totally ignore the cool factor (which is a horrible thing to do – nevertheless…), it turns out that zeppelins and blimps are much less efficient than lift generating aircraft. That might change if you’re doing a lot of hovering (so, for surveillance, zeppelins might be better) but that’s why fixed wing aircraft have dominated, even if we could forget the Hindenburg.

  284. 284.

    Paul in KY

    December 14, 2011 at 8:20 am

    @blondie: That’s the Chetster for you.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Barbara on On The Road – ema – 2024 AKC Meet the Breeds (Apr 18, 2024 @ 5:44am)
  • Baud on On The Road – ema – 2024 AKC Meet the Breeds (Apr 18, 2024 @ 5:42am)
  • sab on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 5:33am)
  • Jay on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 5:29am)
  • Jay on Wednesday News Roundup, A Little Late (Apr 18, 2024 @ 5:28am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!