In Favor or Opposed?
 

I read in the Orlando Sentinel the other day that Orange County has ordered two domestic drones for surveillance. Are domestic drones a good thing or the continuation of Big Brother and the eroision of our constitutional freedoms?

Depends watch they're watching.

gomoho: Who decides that? How do we know if there isn't a hidden agenda? What controls are in place to head off any misuse/abuse? Orange County will advertse their use for the safety and security of people but.....................

Frankly I don't see much difference between drones and Google maps. Drones are just more timely. I also do not feel the least bit paranoid about 'big brother'. I don't even capitalize the words.

I live with technology comfortably and am not worried about possible 'invasions of my privacy'. Maybe it's because I don't have anything to hide.

In my view, the potential for an inappropriate government invasion of my privacy is so small as to be insignificant. This is not to say I do not take proper precautions with my identity and my private records, but that is to protect against private, criminal efforts to interfere, not government actions. It is the same as my attitude toward the Second Amendment. I've decided I don't need to possess an arsenal to protect me from the possibility that a rogue government would attack me in my home. Furthermore I feel the risks of possessing the arsenal are far greater than the risk of government attack.


I think everyone needs to make a fundamental choice about their view of government in their world. The OP makes it sound like there's a 50/50 split between potential benefits vs potential evils of things like search and surveillance technology. My view is that the ratio is closer to 99/1, benefits to evils. I love those odds in our wonderful America!

Agree! TOTALLY against.. Where will this end? :agree::cus:

There going to fly surveillance over the golf courses looking for slow players.
anyone 5 mins behind allotted time we'll be taken out

BTW... Funny this was mentioned. Last Thursday a drone was flying OVER The Villages for probably 20 minutes or so. It was pretty obvious. Kept flying in very tight circles and slowly moving west. . We wondered what was going on.

Hmmm......last thursday was warm & sunny in TV, correct?

Some perv back at the command center spotted a nudist taking advantage? :laugh:

I don't have any strong feelings about this, one way or the other, but just for curiosity sake, what would you imagine the "hidden agenda" might be?

Big Brother, I'm against this invasion of privacy

I agree with you and I am sickened by the constant paranoia and insinuation of government conspiracies. Just childish and foolish dribble. I always wonder what perversion or illegal activity folks are involved in that are afraid of being watched or heard. If my leaders say it is for safety reasons, they can put a camera with microphone in my house. I AM NOT ASHAMED OF ANYTHING I DO AND I AM NOT HIDING ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

Seriously? :ohdear:

I think most of us are living lives devoid of crime or illegal activities, however, I am totally against drones being used by the governments, (local or national), against it's people. To what purpose would this constant spying on the people serve? If you were to fly these at the border with Mexico and stop illegal immigration, sign me up. The potheads are slowing accomplishing the legalization of marijuana so the drones aren't needed for those activities. Is it paranoia to limit government invasion in our lives?

I think about the apathy of the German people when they allowed Hitler to restructure their government with no intervention from them. They trusted and loved their government too. I wonder how many Jews would have escaped death by hiding in others homes if drones were allowed to monitor the streets, homes, fields and so forth. How much worse would have been the decimation of the Jewish people. Have you noticed how much privacy we have lost in the last few years because of the terrorist attacks?

I don't think it's paranoia to realize "WE, the people are the government" and we need to be aware of any rights we transfer to our elected officials. It's so easy to say everything is great, don't worry be happy and not plug into life. I believe Nero fiddled while Rome burned, right?

I just don't understand the need to spend MORE money on something that there is no need for. What are they surveying that they need drones for?

Now that is a good point - the money and what will be the return on OUR dollar?:plane:

Why would we all need to be under surveillance by our government and agree to our right of privacy being lost? If everyone is allowed to fly drones, wouldn't that open up the possibilities of the wrong people causing harm with them? How would we know if a drone flying over our heads is being operated by our government, local police force or a terrorist bent on doing harm?

Maybe a lot of "Marijuana" farms near orange county. Maybe this will become a money maker for the county.

:popcorn::popcorn:

It's just another indication that the terrorists have won.

Maybe the glass is half full.

Just a short list, but drones have the potential to:

-follow fugitives leaving crime scenes
-act on amber alert sightings
-help in blanket searches for missing persons
-provide direct surveillance at crisis locations
-monitor national borders
-measure incoming storm information
-monitor and help redirect traffic problems

What I'm having trouble imagining is what a drone could see that would significantly violate an innocent person's privacy.

I am not worried either.

I believe that it's the "slippery slope" argument. In other words, having the government surveil innocent people leads to storm troopers randomly stopping us and demanding to see our papers. The argument is not without merit in that we often do not object to just a tiny bit of our privacy or freedom being taken away for a good reason, nor the next little bit nor the one after that. Then all of a sudden we turn around and wonder where our freedom went to. The poster who wrote that he wouldn't mind if the government put a microphone and camera in his house because he has nothing to hide misses the point and would voluntarily surrender rights that the founders of this country fought and died for.

:agree: totally! let freedom ring!

Couldn't be said better. It is exactly that very subtle slippery slope argument:bigbow:

Since no poster on this forum knows what the drones are looking for, how do you know it is a waste of money or an infringement on anybody's freedoms? If anybody has insider information, please post it here.

Opposed or not opposed ...yes I am! And I think you have a great idea!

A little info from Friends Committee on National Legislation

Understanding Drones
Sep 21, 2012
Drones are quickly becoming one of the U.S. military's primary weapons. Here is what you need to know about them.


Predator Drone

Copyright © U.S. Air Force

What are drones?
Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as “drones” are aerial systems that can be remotely controlled for short and long range military and civilian purposes. Drones are usually equipped with a camera and can also be armed with missiles. FCNL focuses primarily on the use of armed drones.

How are they being used by the United States?
The use of drones by the United States Government is constantly evolving. Currently, the U.S. military, the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) own and operate drones overseas (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other locations) and along the U.S.-Mexico border. In the last decade the U.S. government has come to rely increasingly on drones for surveillance and air strikes. Even local law enforcement agencies have begun to use drones for surveillance. It is unlikely that domestic drones will be armed, but as use rises, there are growing concerns related to privacy and civil rights.

How many drones does the U.S have and how much do they cost?
According to recent reports, the Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. The fiscal year 2012 budget included nearly $5 billion for drone research, development and procurement. This figure represents the known costs; it does not include funding that may be classified. The CIA has about 30 Predator and Reaper drones, which are operated by Air Force pilots from a U.S. military base in an unnamed U.S. state. The Department of Homeland Security has at least nine unarmed Predator drones with a tenth purchase planned for September 2012. The cost per flight hour varies by type of drone. Predator and Reaper drones cost about $2,500-3,500 per flight hour; larger armed systems such as the military’s Global Hawk cost about 10 times as much: approximately $30,000 per flight hour.

What is Congress’ role regarding drones?
Congress’ primary role with respect to the U.S. drones program has been funding research and development and procurement by the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security. Congress has exercised little or no oversight related to the tactical or strategic use of drones. Because of the belief that there’s no downside to the use of drones, they have become relatively popular with many members of Congress. There is even a pro-drones caucus chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon (CA) , who is also chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

What is the Administration’s role regarding drones?
Recent news articles are beginning to detail the extent to which the White House is involved in decision to use drone strikes. According to press reports, President Obama personally oversees a so called “kill list” that includes pictures and biographies of terrorism suspects and affiliates around the world. Pundits speculate that President Obama has put himself at the helm of the process to inject “moral authority” when the U.S. chooses to use deadly force through drone strikes.

Who decides when and how drones will be used?
Currently, there are two primary agencies using drones abroad—the U.S. military and the CIA. Decisions to use drones for surveillance are generally made within the usual military and civilian chain-of-command structures. The process for deciding to use drones for strikes—particularly in countries that are not declared combat zones—is less well known. The American Security Project reports that, as often as weekly, more than 100 members of the national security structure gather via teleconference to sift through intelligence, biographies, and photos of terrorism suspects. The decision to target someone is made here, but the President must approve the decision before action is taken.

Regulation of drone use depends primarily on the location in which they are deployed. In declared combat zones (such as Afghanistan), there are clear rules of engagement and chain of command. In countries not declared combat zones (such as Yemen), the U.S. is supposed to work with the government of the country in which it is operates drones. There are significant lapses in meeting this requirement, most notably in Pakistan where the U.S. often takes unilateral action.

Are drones illegal?
Experts are not in agreement about the legality of drones in use either domestically or internationally.

Targeted assassinations test the legal limits of the Obama administration’s power—most notably in September 2011 when Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen accused of being the organizational leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), was killed in Yemen by a U.S. drone strike. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to this largely ignored incident. The ACLU has also filed additional FOIA requests related to the legal justification of targeted killings. After a D.C. circuit court ruled in favor of the CIA, the ACLU appealed; oral arguments are scheduled for September 20, 2012.8

Some contend that the use of drones to target suspected terrorists internationally is legal under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which covers rights to “self-defense.” According to the UN Special Rapporteur, article 51 applies if “either the targeted state agrees to the use of force in its territory by another nation, or the targeted state or a group operating within its territory, was responsible for an act of aggression against the targeting state.” According to this interpretation, only one requirement must be satisfied to justify the use of unilateral force.

Others argue it is in the best interest of the United States to outline special rules on the use of drones due to their potentially ubiquitous nature. Mary Ellen O’Connell, professor of Law at University of Notre Dame, argues that “Just as with torture, targeted killing is not the way to greater security. It is generally unlawful, immoral, and ineffective.”

Other than the ACLU challenge, there has been very little legal challenge to the U.S. use of drones for targeted killing abroad. Legal justifications have been cited but not tested. The lack of confirmed information related to the U.S. drone program makes it very difficult to draw objective conclusions and leads to little more than conjecture.

What are the potential long term implications of the use of drones?
Widespread and indiscriminate use of drones may carry some significant negative consequences for the U.S. A decade after the tragic events of 9-11, the U.S. is still struggling to define its role in the world. From the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to military intervention in Libya—including a U.S. drone strike credited for ending the exile of former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi—to uncertainty about what to do in Syria, the mission of U.S. foreign policy seems vague and scattered, and ill-suited to promoting peace.

With the lack of overarching strategy, many leaders may see drones as a low cost—human and financial—alternative to war. Under this logic, the U.S. may decide not to invade Yemen or Somalia with ground troops, but instead conduct undeclared wars in these and other countries, with little or no Congressional or public oversight, and operating outside of legal norms.

Indeed, some administration officials do acknowledge that drones may create potential long term issues Dennis Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence, said “[Drone strikes are] the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness… Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”

Such long term damage is known as “blowback” – incidents that arise in later years as an unintended consequence of actions taken today. The events of September 11th, 2001, for example, are often linked back to U.S. 1980’s support for mujahedeen fighters resisting Soviet occupation. One must wonder how young men in Northern Pakistan will internalize the hundreds of drone strikes—mostly under this administration—that have taken place in their country over the last decade.

As the U.S. expands drone bases across the country—there are some 64 bases in the U.S. where drone operate from—this may be a time to pause and evaluate the potential outcomes of this policy. Currently, hundreds of companies are developing small and large scale drone technology. Over 50 other countries are also starting to develop the technology. This raises a serious question: what happens when everyone has drones? The U.S., in conjunction with the international community, may benefit from recognizing this potential and beginning to outline international laws on drone use. Restricting the use of drones worldwide is undoubtedly in the best interest of a more peaceful world.


Please use this pdf file to share this information with your family, friends and community. Let your political officials know that you're concerned about the U.S. drones program.

Great observations. I have nothing to hide but some may. There is nothing wrong with a close watch over things.

It's not really the present situation I care about, it is the future. No matter what ideas snowball, so two drones for "safety" today can lead to more intrusion tomorrow, or 10 years from now. I am not here specifically to protect my civil liberties, but those of my children and future great grandchildren. As the snowball gets bigger they are the ones who will suffer, not us.

Are you talking about the blimp we saw that said Navy on it? Can't remember what day it was, but it was around dinner time.

In the Keys there is a smaller blimp on a tether commonly referred to as Fat Alpert that watches for drug dealings and such off the coast (Gulf side).

reply
 

I agree

Yep. Just chip, chip, chip away at our freedom and Constitional Rights. One little chip at a time...who will notice or complain if we just chip away at it slowly. We've already accepted invasive "pat downs" and full body scans, just to be allowed the "privilege" to fly. Twelve years ago, we would have LOL at the thought, but because a few a-holes with box cutters managed to pull off a terrorist attack on the United States, all of a sudden, half of the citizens of this country have rolled over and begged their government to protect them, at any cost. Now, twelve years later...sure send drones overhead to record the moves of American citizens, by all means, if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care. Next year, stick a camera up my a$$, it's all good.

It's interesting that folks are worried about a drone flying thousands of feet overhead, but then view a patrol car cruising in front of their house as a sign of good police protection. Think of all the money that can be saved and privacy restored if we just eliminate police patrols.

what would possess you to think that reason should prevail?:ohdear:

I just don't think some folks think it through before looking at privacy invasion.

When someone could get on a plane with some knd of device to blow it up, sacrificing those freedoms are necessary in my opinion. It isn't a right to ride a plane, it is a privilege and a choice.

Many of us want to know WHAT that strange looking person is hiding.

It is wise to think, think again. Try to look at things in a common sense kind of way. Do not swallow whole what others write or print.

Don't let any group tell you what to think. ANY group.

And when they stop checking who has what hidden boarding a plane and I know that some folks hate Americans so much that they would willingly commit suicide to kill a bunch of us, I will stop boarding a plane. If being searched is the stopper for others, they will stop boarding a plane.

Everyone looks at things differently.

I look at it as giving us more comfort one piece at a time. Not taking away one piece at a time. I guess its the glass half full or half empty.

I would have to reasearch the current US Supreme Ct and lower CT cases on warrants.
 

Drones stir up controversy after Sheriff Office purchase | Orange County News - WESH Home

These "drones" are about the size of some of the model planes you see flying over the Polo Field.

Lawyers on both sides would be looking out for our rights via the FL and US Constitutions with respect to warrantless searches and the like. I would think that this would save civilian and law enforcement lives in certain situatons like with an armed stand off where they could keep SWAT and neighbors away from the area more easily.

These are not the military style drones you see in many movies and TV shows. They have to be used by an officer who keeps them in her line of sight and only in daylight. Check page 2 of the WESH article.


What Is a Search Warrant and When Is One Needed? - Lawyers.com

R they armed

Skybo: Spot on with the chip chip chip. during the cold war Russia used that very tactic to take control of Eastern Europe. The experts referred to it as "the salami tactic"" because the Russians took one slice at a time and before Eastern Europe knew it they were captives of Russia.

It would seem that Americans would be inclined to guard their freedoms more judicously but apparently too many of us are relying on the government for all things.

Certainly we can make an argument that the drones guard our safety and security. However we don't know the hearts of men. Even those with good intentions can make decision that end up with unintended consequences

The problem is there are no controls when it comes to the goverment. They implement policies that seem to disappear into nowhere but yet are costing us billions up billions, are no longer relevant and will continue into perpetuity.

Because of this I do have a tendency to look at everything they do with some skepticism. The government is heavy on this "too big to fail"theme and yet I wonder why they can't see that it has application to government too? Or can they?