• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress

No there is not. I happen to be friends and a fellow competitor to a number of members/officers of a fish and game club in Central Massachusetts that this happened to. They were already in the process of obtaining the necessary permits to do the construction to turn the range at the time they received the "warning". I have heard unsubstantiated rumors that several other clubs in the Communistwealth received similar notices with attached aerial/satellite photos attached to them but I can't say specifically beyond the one club I am personally familiar with.

MA is really tough on gun laws. CT is nuts too, but I think we got some leeway due to so many gun companies starting in this state. I have owned homes in both states, and it was a pain to move my very small gun collection. The Glock was the main issue.
 
MA is really tough on gun laws. CT is nuts too, but I think we got some leeway due to so many gun companies starting in this state. I have owned homes in both states, and it was a pain to move my very small gun collection. The Glock was the main issue.

I've lived in both states as well, and can agree with you that there are all sorts of problems with the gun ownership rights in both. This wasn't as much a gun issue as an environmental one. Lead shot ending up in waterways being the main issue. My point was that the STATE EPA got the Federal Government to do aerial/satellite recon on these sites to see if they were complying. This sort of stuff already happens, though obviously not in real-time like these UAV's will hopefully be able to provide.
 
My new home I am building is very remote and I guess the DEA thinks it is a prime pot growing spot. Every summer around harvest time a helicopter hovers over our garden so low I can see the guys faces. It completely pisses me off, as far as I am concerned this is a search without a warrant. I stand there and give them both middle fingers. At least a drone would be quiet I guess.

Get his tail number and report him. Make up some **** about the downwash damaging property.
 
I've lived in both states as well, and can agree with you that there are all sorts of problems with the gun ownership rights in both. This wasn't as much a gun issue as an environmental one. Lead shot ending up in waterways being the main issue. My point was that the STATE EPA got the Federal Government to do aerial/satellite recon on these sites to see if they were complying. This sort of stuff already happens, though obviously not in real-time like these UAV's will hopefully be able to provide.
And you're sure it was a satellite photo, not an aerial one? Pretty hard to tell the difference unless there are several pics, each one zooming in from the last. Aerial photos are relatively cheap, even the City could afford to have an area flown for a big san sewer project.
 
I am opposed to the use of drones for civilian law-enforcement. This paves the way for more abuse on 4th amendment rights,the government spying on the people and these things being everywhere.



Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress - Washington Times
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.
The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.
Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.
“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies,” said attorney Jennifer Lynch.

Yes, let's go one step further and put those hellfire missiles on them, that'll help stop car chases, or a whole variety of other crimes. That's how we do around the rest of the world... So why should we be deprived of the best that security technology has to offer .
 
That makes a lot of sense, and I understand your feelings. But the other side of it, is the people who might try to do something TO YOU. For me, I would prefer that police forces do something halts or even prevents people from doing something TO ME, rather than punishing then after the fact, after they've already done the damage. I prefer prevention rather than retribution. About all I can count on now is retribution, and honestly that is cold comfort.

At some point, you reach extremely diminishing returns on increased surveillance and security. Real prevention of violent crime and terrorism doesn't come from spying on us. Terrorism was never a serious threat to begin with, and violent crime is actually pretty rare. We have long since passed the point where we are getting a good return on our security investment. We are trading gallons of freedoms away for teaspoons worth of protection.
 
And you're sure it was a satellite photo, not an aerial one? Pretty hard to tell the difference unless there are several pics, each one zooming in from the last. Aerial photos are relatively cheap, even the City could afford to have an area flown for a big san sewer project.

Mo, the individuals who have seen the photo (which I am not one of), indicated that there was a US Government stamp on the photo, and that by the view, it had to have been taken within a relatively recent time span. I was told they believed it to be a satellite image, but that it was definitely from the US Government either way. Supposedly it was pretty obvious that whatever had taken the photo was focused on the skeet/trap range at the time. It was a State issue. The town had nothing to do with it in this case. Realistically this was an attempt by the Communistwealth of Massachusetts to shut down shooting facilities. Thankfully it didn't work for the most part.
 
At some point, you reach extremely diminishing returns on increased surveillance and security. Real prevention of violent crime and terrorism doesn't come from spying on us. Terrorism was never a serious threat to begin with, and violent crime is actually pretty rare. We have long since passed the point where we are getting a good return on our security investment. We are trading gallons of freedoms away for teaspoons worth of protection.

I don't feel like I would be spied upon if UAVs were operating in the area. I'm not in the habit of doing anything illegal anyway so eyes in the sky don't make me nervous. I'd feel better protected to be honest. Another way to look at it is that UAVs could be in the air but with "eyes closed." Meaning they would not be actively scanning, but would be on-station and available should police units need them.
 
Mo, the individuals who have seen the photo (which I am not one of), indicated that there was a US Government stamp on the photo, and that by the view, it had to have been taken within a relatively recent time span. I was told they believed it to be a satellite image, but that it was definitely from the US Government either way. Supposedly it was pretty obvious that whatever had taken the photo was focused on the skeet/trap range at the time. It was a State issue. The town had nothing to do with it in this case. Realistically this was an attempt by the Communistwealth of Massachusetts to shut down shooting facilities. Thankfully it didn't work for the most part.
Still could have been an aerial. The Corp of Engineers and USGS routinely do aerial runs all over the US when they update quadrangle and flood plane maps. I'm not saying is wasn't a satellite shot, either. The price of satellite imagery has been coming down for years. There are many private satellites that take photos, too - of course those wouldn't have a US stamp on them.
 
I don't feel like I would be spied upon if UAVs were operating in the area. I'm not in the habit of doing anything illegal anyway so eyes in the sky don't make me nervous. I'd feel better protected to be honest. Another way to look at it is that UAVs could be in the air but with "eyes closed." Meaning they would not be actively scanning, but would be on-station and available should police units need them.

Actually, most everyone breaks the law every single day, multiple times per day, without even knowing it.
 
Actually, most everyone breaks the law every single day, multiple times per day, without even knowing it.

If it's something very minor, something a beat cop might pretend he didn't see, then it's certainly not worth consuming the resources of a UAV. Remember, there would be a cop watching through the cameras. He's not going to alert central dispatch because a guy jaywalked across an empty, sleepy street. He's looking for things far more serious.
 
Police Officers and Firefighters. They sure love their toys.

Only place I could see these making sense would be on the borders. Otherwise? Just one more waste of taxpayers' money.

Speaking of wasting taxpayer money:

........It was called "Project Shield" and cost about $45 million in federal funding. The idea was to equip police cars and other locations in Cook County with cameras capable of sending live video to a command center, giving first responders more information in an emergency.

But Monday's report said the program was troubled from the beginning. Equipment was never adequately tested, funds were mismanaged and of the 128 municipalities, 32 never received equipment. The report blasted Cook County officials, state leaders and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administered the funds.

"The project was not implemented effectively and millions of tax dollars may have been wasted on equipment that does not perform as intended," the report said......Illinois Homeland Security program a waste? - Carmi, IL - The Carmi Times

If they can install simple ground based stuff correctly I sure as heck don't want them flying stuff around my neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
I am opposed to the use of drones for civilian law-enforcement. This paves the way for more abuse on 4th amendment rights,the government spying on the people and these things being everywhere.



Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress - Washington Times
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.
The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.
Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.
“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies,” said attorney Jennifer Lynch.

Just my knee-jerk reaction here: I don't think I have a problem with this. Perhaps my opinion will change as I learn more about it, but drones can only see you in public....just like everyone else can already see you. They can't see through the roof of your home.
 
Just my knee-jerk reaction here: I don't think I have a problem with this. Perhaps my opinion will change as I learn more about it, but drones can only see you in public....just like everyone else can already see you. They can't see through the roof of your home.

I think that just goes back to what surveillance packages they will be allowed to have.

Is there a public use for the technology?
 
I think that just goes back to what surveillance packages they will be allowed to have. Is there a public use for the technology?
Well, they can see and detect a great deal. I imagine the government would want them for police and homeland security purposes.
 
Just my knee-jerk reaction here: I don't think I have a problem with this. Perhaps my opinion will change as I learn more about it, but drones can only see you in public....just like everyone else can already see you. They can't see through the roof of your home.


You have no problem with drones spying on every little thing you do the moment you step outside your home? This is something the Soviet Union or some other country would do if they have technology and money to do it. This is not something the US should do or tolerate on its own soil.
 
Last edited:
You have no problem with drones spying on every little thing you do the moment you step outside your home? This is something the Soviet Union or some other country would do if they have technology and money to do it. This is not something the US should do or tolerate on its own soil.

A drone can't see everything everywhere every moment. Most likely drones would be employed over "hot spots" where crime is most frequent. So if you're living in a sleep suburban neighborhood it's unlikely a drone would be monitoring there. But if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I would damned well insist on a drone keeping an eye out the moment I left the door.
 
You have no problem with drones spying on every little thing you do the moment you step outside your home? This is something the Soviet Union or some other country would do if they have technology and money to do it. This is not something the US should do or tolerate on its own soil.

I'm out in public. I'm not worried about anyone seeing what I'm doing because everyone can already see what I'm doing.
 
I saw a great comment by someone on the site, and I wish I could find it now. I am paraphrasing here:

The return on investment for security reduces at a certain point. We passed that point.
 
You have no problem with drones spying on every little thing you do the moment you step outside your home? This is something the Soviet Union or some other country would do if they have technology and money to do it. This is not something the US should do or tolerate on its own soil.

Then why not get the American public to improve its behavior so these sorts of things are not necessary?
 
Back
Top Bottom