Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

  1. #31
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    If that scares you, then you really don't want to open your eyes. They don't have to go through all that effort if you turn on broadcasts. They do not have to ping anything if you are broadcasting. All they really have to do is wait for you to want to call someone and then you are broadcasting for them. They do not need to send your phone a request to send a signal when you do it for them. Some people even turn on their GPS trackers for their friends and family to see where they are. If you are using your GPS system to plot your course, you are sending the signals yourself.

    It is not hard to track someone when you give them toys they want to use that let you track them. If you really do not want the government tracking your movements you need to toss the cell phone registered to your name, and screw having a car that in onstar capable or has it's own GPS. They are fun toys people don't like living without, but that is how they can easily get around laws and privacy concerns if they want to track you. in the end if you are not doing much these things are creepy but not terribly dangerous to you.
    USSID 18 Guide
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    perhaps i am not wuite getting it. Draw the picture for me and call me stupid if you will, but that just seems like instructions on the capabilities and use of equipment. Again, I can agree with the argument that restrictions should be applied to the use of drones on US soil, but it doesn't seem to prove that the specific modifications were specially requested as opposed to standard on drones. the intiial article implies some sort of special adaptations to drones that would actually seem like pretty standard equipment for drones used in military combat. Thank you for the attempt at information. i seriously do appreciate a well defined in context version of instructions for the drones as it does bring up different issues, but it still does not give truth to the original article. be aware, my main complain is not the use of drones, but rather the implication that they were specially ordered to do these invasive things when they were actually made to be invasive and now are just being sold for use on US soil. It is more of my complaint with the perversion of the real issue to make it look like a completely different issue for the sake of public outrage which i think could have been more honestly achieved by claiming that war drones were being used for civilian issues. your article confirms my suspicions that drones are capable of far more invasive monitoring techniques, but that our current laws need to address new technology and it's uses rather than simply pretending that one side made a specific request to add these standard items to a invasive object.

  3. #33
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    perhaps i am not wuite getting it. Draw the picture for me and call me stupid if you will, but that just seems like instructions on the capabilities and use of equipment. Again, I can agree with the argument that restrictions should be applied to the use of drones on US soil, but it doesn't seem to prove that the specific modifications were specially requested as opposed to standard on drones. the intiial article implies some sort of special adaptations to drones that would actually seem like pretty standard equipment for drones used in military combat. Thank you for the attempt at information. i seriously do appreciate a well defined in context version of instructions for the drones as it does bring up different issues, but it still does not give truth to the original article. be aware, my main complain is not the use of drones, but rather the implication that they were specially ordered to do these invasive things when they were actually made to be invasive and now are just being sold for use on US soil. It is more of my complaint with the perversion of the real issue to make it look like a completely different issue for the sake of public outrage which i think could have been more honestly achieved by claiming that war drones were being used for civilian issues. your article confirms my suspicions that drones are capable of far more invasive monitoring techniques, but that our current laws need to address new technology and it's uses rather than simply pretending that one side made a specific request to add these standard items to a invasive object.
    That is exactly the point that I am making. There are well defined laws already on the books that limit the use of military assets on US soil. But now that these drones - which were once a military asset - are being used in a less-than-military capacity, I am concerned that there are no current laws on the books with sufficient force to delay the inevitable. Our entire legal system boils down to a series of precedents that become case law; i.e. if it happened once and a judge ruled it was ok (or if it happened routinely and nobody complained), then it is ok to do.

    As far as this situation goes, there is no specific law governing the use of drones over US soil, and further, the PATRIOT Act adds a whole new element of slippery slope. I used to be a part of the US Intelligence Community, and I am worried about the future, namely in the form of whatever new events will shape future precedents.
    Last edited by Gonzo Rodeo; 03-08-13 at 12:12 AM.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •