What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

30,000 Drones in the USA within a decade...

F

Fedusenko

Guest
Drones in the USA

Read the article. Don't comment unless you do. Are you one of these americans? Since when did drones get used for anything other than destruction?
 
I read the article.

As mentioned, they're useful for things such as search and rescue missions or patrolling for various criminal activities.

What I find interesting is that people are generally supportive of them to catch criminals and illegal border crossers, but they are strongly against them being used to catch speeders. People enjoy being tough on crime, so long as it's not a crime they're likely to commit. Where have I seen this before?

Personally, I'm against drones for the simple reason that machines are capable of achieving intelligence some day, and when/if that happens, I don't want an army of drones sitting around waiting to rain death on the human race.
 
I'm surprised that so many Americans are open to drones patrolling the US. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
elizabethbraddock said:
I'm surprised that so many Americans are open to drones patrolling the US. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Click to expand...

How are you giving up liberty by allowing drones to monitor for criminal activity? You're still 100% free to do whatever you want. There's simply an increased probability that if you commit a crime, you will be caught. Since many victims of crime experience a reduction in their liberty, how can it be argued that there's a net loss of liberty through increased surveillance?
 
DarkHorseRising said:
How are you giving up liberty by allowing drones to monitor for criminal activity? You're still 100% free to do whatever you want. There's simply an increased probability that if you commit a crime, you will be caught. Since many victims of crime experience a reduction in their liberty, how can it be argued that there's a net loss of liberty through increased surveillance?
Click to expand...

First, because a free society should not need surveillance. It is what the right to privacy is all about.

For example in public many Christian women dress modestly, but in private they may not. They may well sunbathe in their backyards in tiny bikinis or even less behind a privacy fence. With a camera in the sky they have lost that freedom in their own sanctuary. With infrared cameras the intimacy of a husband & wife can be easily turned into pornography. Honest folks have reasonable right to privacy & it should be protected.

We are not criminals, we are not terrorist, we're not evil doers and we should not be treated as insane reprobates on suicide watch.
 
TonkaTim said:
First, because a free society should not need surveillance. It is what the right to privacy is all about.

For example in public many Christian women dress modestly, but in private they may not. They may well sunbathe in their backyards in tiny bikinis or even less behind a privacy fence. With a camera in the sky they have lost that freedom in their own sanctuary. With infrared cameras the intimacy of a husband & wife can be easily turned into pornography. Honest folks have reasonable right to privacy & it should be protected.

We are not criminals, we are not terrorist, we're not evil doers and we should not be treated as insane reprobates on suicide watch.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see the misunderstanding here, I apologize as I might not have been clear as to my meaning. Surveillance should be used in public only (unless there's a court order), where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Of course nobody should be watching people in their private homes. The article was specific on mentioning people crossing illegally into the country; having a drone patrol the desert is far different than hovering over your back yard.

If the standards are well defined, it wouldn't be much different than we have now (police are allowed to monitor public places for signs of crime). The big difference is that it would be far more efficient.
 
DarkHorseRising said:
Oh, I see the misunderstanding here, I apologize as I might not have been clear as to my meaning. Surveillance should be used in public only (unless there's a court order), where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Of course nobody should be watching people in their private homes. The article was specific on mentioning people crossing illegally into the country; having a drone patrol the desert is far different than hovering over your back yard.

If the standards are well defined, it wouldn't be much different than we have now (police are allowed to monitor public places for signs of crime). The big difference is that it would be far more efficient.
Click to expand...

The problem is a question of the slippery slope. If so many people are okay with this, what's next? They may start out monitoring public places where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, but who is to say that they won't be misused? Giving more power to the government is never a good thing.
 
elizabethbraddock said:
The problem is a question of the slippery slope. If so many people are okay with this, what's next? They may start out monitoring public places where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, but who is to say that they won't be misused? Giving more power to the government is never a good thing.
Click to expand...

Who is to say that they will be misused? Anything with an intended use can be misused. This is why we set clear limits on usage and establish penalties for those who break these standards. It's called the law.
 
DarkHorseRising said:
Who is to say that they will be misused? Anything with an intended use can be misused.
Click to expand...

Afghani civilians say they are misused.

This is why we set clear limits on usage and establish penalties for those who break these standards. It's called the law.
Click to expand...

Clear examples of domestic espionage and its illegal usage is wiretapping before it was legal without court order.
 
Fedusenko said:
Afghani civilians say they are misused.
Click to expand...

That's true and I wish they were used more judiciously over there. However, this article is about surveillance drones, particularly along the borders and highways. Presumably these will not be carrying Griffin air-to-surface missiles.
 
I wish I could get my own drone. Maybe I'll get a smaller, concealed-carry drone!

Will Commiefornia only allow my drone to hold ten rounds or less?

Will they have to have such vague legislature so that even lawyers won't understand exactly what kind of drones are permissable and which aren't like NewYork?

Hmmmmm... I'll take a compact drone in od green with detachable laser! :chin

Could I possible get a deer hunting drone?? ;) :confused: :thumbsup
 
i want one to take athiests at will or socialists:D

im a soldier, one cant just fly them and not in some shape see something that is private.btw the sattelites can take pictures of you anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top