Land Of The Free

[lxskllr]

Obama signature could bring surveillance drones to your backyard

President Obama last week signed the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act of 2012. Tucked inside the legislation is a provision that could have far-reaching implications in the coming decade: widespread civilian use of unmanned aerial drones.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...eek-signed.ars

This country's a joke...

[sgreger1]

Yah, it's been a long time coming but the police state is finally here.

[GoVegan]

Yes! More of that change we were promised. The only thing going for Obama right now is that he suck less than the Republican candidates. Not that he is good, he just sucks less IMO.

[jagmanss]

Makes me wish Trump would jump back in the race....

[Kaplan]

Isn't this exactly what Ron Paul would encourage...basically, deregulation. I'm just going by the article, but it says the new law will allow (or make it easier for) private citizens to fly drones. As a consequence, it'll make it easier for the police to use them as well, but the government apparently can already use drones anytime they want anyway. If the police use drones for rescues and emergencies, then no problem, but to spy on us citizens, then it's a problem. But George Bush already made it very easy for the government to spy on us anytime it wants, and you won't find many Republicans who opposed him...all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. It used to be communism.

Maybe I just want to play a little devil's advocate. I just think it's very hard to strike a good balance here. You want to allow freedom, but then people use that freedom to infringe on other people's rights (like privacy), and you want to allow the police to use technology to help them fight crime and save lives, but then you open up the door to allow them a greater ability to spy on anyone they even suspect of a crime... Sorry, but I can't jump on the Obama sucks campaign. He has his flaws, and he could be doing this or doing that, but voting in a Republican isn't the answer. You can be damned sure the vast majority of Republicans won't blink an eye over giving the government and the police more authority in the name of enforcing laws and protecting this country, even when the solution is worse than the problem. It just so happens Obama signed in this act, but it's not like a Republican would have fought to restrict the rights of the police. Nothing in history supports that proposal.

[lxskllr]

Isn't this exactly what Ron Paul would encourage...basically, deregulation. I'm just going by the article, but it says the new law will allow (or make it easier for) private citizens to fly drones. As a consequence, it'll make it easier for the police to use them as well, but the government apparently can already use drones anytime they want anyway. If the police use drones for rescues and emergencies, then no problem, but to spy on us citizens, then it's a problem. But George Bush already made it very easy for the government to spy on us anytime it wants, and you won't find many Republicans who opposed him...all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. It used to be communism.

Maybe I just want to play a little devil's advocate. I just think it's very hard to strike a good balance here. You want to allow freedom, but then people use that freedom to infringe on other people's rights (like privacy), and you want to allow the police to use technology to help them fight crime and save lives, but then you open up the door to allow them a greater ability to spy on anyone they even suspect of a crime... Sorry, but I can't jump on the Obama sucks campaign. He has his flaws, and he could be doing this or doing that, but voting in a Republican isn't the answer. You can be damned sure the vast majority of Republicans won't blink an eye over giving the government and the police more authority in the name of enforcing laws and protecting this country, even when the solution is worse than the problem. It just so happens Obama signed in this act, but it's not like a Republican would have fought to restrict the rights of the police. Nothing in history supports that proposal.

Paul didn't vote one way or the other. Obama sucks just like the majority of Republicans do. If you've taken anything from the bits I've written in this forum, the most important point is that I don't distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. They're the same party AFAIC. Obama's a piece of shit, and should be tried for treason right after GWBs execution for the same crimes.

[heders]

WTF! USA is a crazy country...

[sgreger1]

Isn't this exactly what Ron Paul would encourage...basically, deregulation. I'm just going by the article, but it says the new law will allow (or make it easier for) private citizens to fly drones. As a consequence, it'll make it easier for the police to use them as well, but the government apparently can already use drones anytime they want anyway. If the police use drones for rescues and emergencies, then no problem, but to spy on us citizens, then it's a problem. But George Bush already made it very easy for the government to spy on us anytime it wants, and you won't find many Republicans who opposed him...all in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. It used to be communism.

Maybe I just want to play a little devil's advocate. I just think it's very hard to strike a good balance here. You want to allow freedom, but then people use that freedom to infringe on other people's rights (like privacy), and you want to allow the police to use technology to help them fight crime and save lives, but then you open up the door to allow them a greater ability to spy on anyone they even suspect of a crime... Sorry, but I can't jump on the Obama sucks campaign. He has his flaws, and he could be doing this or doing that, but voting in a Republican isn't the answer. You can be damned sure the vast majority of Republicans won't blink an eye over giving the government and the police more authority in the name of enforcing laws and protecting this country, even when the solution is worse than the problem. It just so happens Obama signed in this act, but it's not like a Republican would have fought to restrict the rights of the police. Nothing in history supports that proposal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the republicans would do any better, because you are right in that they would just do the same things as Obama. The point is that the democrats and republicans all do the same things. Dems voted for the wars too, they voter for the patriot act too, dems lead the subcommittee that was first alerted to our use of torture and didn't protest it, dems re-signed the patriot act, signed NDAA etc etc etc. Republicans did all these things too, but for some reason you are missing the fact that the dems did them as well. At no point during Bush's term (when they had majority in congress) did they protest any of these things, and once a dem president got in (Obama), they just went on to extend the patriot act and go about business as usual. So I fail to see any big difference between the parties, other than the fact that the dems seem to focus less on religon.

They both do a lot of talking about what their party believes in but they appear to have the same agenda as far as i'm concerned. Only 1 man was against all of the things I labeled above, Ron Paul. He is for deregulation, but so is everyone else, look at Clinton and Barney Frank collapsing the economy by repealing Glass Stiegl, thus deregulating the banks and allowing them to get into various risky investments which eventually led to the collapse. It's not Dem or Rep, it's just a big group of elites with slightly varying opinions on how they should go about seizing and retaining power.

Currently though I would have to vote for Obama over any of the republican candidates because Rick Santorum has got to be one of the absolute worst candidates I have ever seen run for public office ever. But if Paul doesn't end up on the ballot (which he won't), than i'm sitting this one out. No way am I pulling the D or R lever ever again.




Edit: On a sidenote, I do think the airspace should be deregulated to allow for civilian UAV's. Don't see why the gov should have a monopoly on the sky. However I think if regulation is needed in one place, it's on the government and it's enforcers, i.e. the police. In fact, most regulation should be reducing the power or providing additional oversight to the various operations of government. They are the ones who need to be watched, not us.

[truthwolf1]

Sorry, but I can't jump on the Obama sucks campaign. He has his flaws, and he could be doing this or doing that, but voting in a Republican isn't the answer.

Voting in a non-bought candidate like Ron Paul is the answer. At least he could somehow try to clean house and restore some liberty and honesty to our system. If nothing else some serious audits and sway towards accountability. We have not had somebody like that in office in a very long time. C'MON Kaplan stay awake!

Remember, BUSH=OBAMA OBAMA=BUSH

[Kaplan]

Paul didn't vote one way or the other.

Since this was tucked inside a larger bill, that makes no difference. It follows what Ron Paul supports: The reduction and elimination of laws restricting a citizen's rights, in this case to use unmanned drones. The knee-jerk reaction is that drones are used for spying, so they should be banned here, but the article touches on legitimate uses for drones, by normal citizens and by police. Just because they can be abused, then they shouldn't be used? By that logic, we can start banning all kinds of things. I think it's a scary image, the idea of these little drones flying around unseen above our heads, reporting our every move and action, but at the end of the day all sorts of things are scary. For some people it's a scary idea for their fellow citizens to have a collection of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, and for other people it's a scary idea that you can buy whatever kind of tobacco you want online because kids might abuse some imaginary loophole. Freedom's scary for a lot of people, and so is the alternative.

[lxskllr]

Since this was tucked inside a larger bill, that makes no difference. It follows what Ron Paul supports: The reduction and elimination of laws restricting a citizen's rights, in this case to use unmanned drones. The knee-jerk reaction is that drones are used for spying, so they should be banned here, but the article touches on legitimate uses for drones, by normal citizens and by police. Just because they can be abused, then they shouldn't be used? By that logic, we can start banning all kinds of things. I think it's a scary image, the idea of these little drones flying around unseen above our heads, reporting our every move and action, but at the end of the day all sorts of things are scary. For some people it's a scary idea for their fellow citizens to have a collection of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, and for other people it's a scary idea that you can buy whatever kind of tobacco you want online because kids might abuse some imaginary loophole. Freedom's scary for a lot of people, and so is the alternative.

I'm fine with citizens owning just about anything they want. I'm against the government having increased power. It WILL be abused by the government, and 'regulations' won't stop that. There's more options for dealing with an issue when it's caused by a private party, and everyone having access to the technology is it's own check.

[sandman1911]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Premium Parrots]