lol

Better surveillance drones than manned helicopters accidentally crashing into something.

But as I said, privacy needs to be addressed. Maybe something along the lines of deploying drones only in the event of an emergency or, absent that, only with a judge's okay?

We can't get police departments to use tasers responsibly so, let's give them drones.

Think how invaluable a surveillance drone would be to track a missing child. Or a fugitive. Or even to find an escaped convict.

As I said, privacy concerns need to be addressed. And any 'militarization' of drones should be strictly forbidden. Always. Other than that, yeah, bring on the drones!

All of those situations are resolved with human intelligence more often than not, which drones do not have.

Try searching a forest for a missing child. You can sure as hell cover more ground with aerial reconnaissance. What's the point of putting out an Amber alert if you're just going to hope that someone, somewhere will see the alert and connect it with the right make and model car they may or may not have seen recently?

Address the privacy issues. Forbid militarization. What's the problem?

On edit:
Drones don't move about on their own. I don't believe they have robotic capabilities. They're controlled by someone sitting in an office with a monitor. So yeah, let the police do their jobs so long as we have the right safeguards in place.

And as far as finding a child in a forest, there are these things called dogs whose noses can detect a drop in a swimming pool the size of Colorado. And aerial reconnaissance cannot comb a community with the granularity that actual people can.

There is no reason to allow drones above our communities except that it will be very profitable for some defense contractor(s)

The ones the police use are not weaponized. This would not constitute militarization of the skies.

because that weapons system is not armed?

Okay.

Remote control planes with cameras have existed for 40+ years. This is nothing new.

It is not a weapon, it is not militarized.

Good grief. Ask Pakistan.

Your unloaded gun is still a gun.

Why do people defend this shit? It's unfathomable.

period.

Most airplanes and helicopters, remote controlled or not, are not weapons.

Regarding those devices in Texas, now I have an issue with them but only in the cases where they are weaponized.

however until the police in the United States cease having a mentality of treating everyone they encounter with suspicion and in many cases - contempt, I do not support giving them anymore high tech toys to use and potentially abuse. We will just have to find the missing child using traditional methods like outstanding detective work, canines and Sylvia Browne.

Earlier, I posted a link to an article stating how a sheriff in Texas wants to arm a drone with tear gas and rubber bullets, so clearly the police already have their hearts set on militarization and not just reconnaissance.

With the hardcore legislative and punitive nature of our society, I really don't care to make the authoritarians job any easier. As far as I'm concerned, the potential cost far exceeds any benefit.

ETA link to article: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/

I understand your concerns but, as I pointed out elsewhere, if the right laws and regulations were a part of this, I don't see the problem.

I doubt that the privacy controls will go in place first -- we seem to be in a time where most people are willing to stay silent on needless invasions of privacy if it's done in the name of security.

Everybody wins except our communities.

If the tools are used responsibly. It's up to us to see to it that our concerns are addressed.

I don't think this country is militarized enough. I think we should be issued uniforms so when the drones fly over our homes, we can stand at attention.

...have laws and regulations put into place that forbid the militarization of drones.

A drone can be equipped with whatever its operators want it to be equipped with. Like I said -pass laws that forbid it to carry anything but cameras.

I think you're bound and determined to see something evil in this but I don't think you're making your points. And as for finding missing children, drones could still be very useful. It doesn't matter if you have a hundred people with a hundred dogs, they are all still going to be on the ground. You can get a much better and faster view of the situation -kidnappings, collapsed buildings or bridges, escaped convicts, etc.- if you have something in the air.

If we stand against militarization, it won't happen. And if you think it will happen despite what we want, well, then there was no point in starting this thread, was there?

That is not a selling point.

And yes, dogs and searchers are on the ground. When lost children are up in the sky, then you might have an argument.

And of course we need to stand against the further militarization of our communities. Militarization is sucking us dry and eating our civil rights. At this point, we have no choice but to organize a response to it. Time has come.

No more of this "we'll fix it later" stuff, that "plan" can go to blazes.

1. Only to be used in an emergency.
2. Absent an emergency, only to be used with a judge's okay (I'm thinking to catch arms dealers, child porn dealers, etc.)
3. No weaponry of any sort.

Can anyone think of anything else?

and I think your heart is definitely in the right place, but were I believe you and I differ, is that I feel TPTB would never agree to such limitations.

That being said, I would add some type of immunity statute in there as well.

But I don't think observation drones can be stopped any more than technology itself can be stopped. Someone, somewhere will point out that his or her child might have been saved if one of these was in the air at the right time and the public will eventually capitulate.

So the way to 'defang' it is to put enough solid regulations in place that the likelihood of abuse is next to nothing.

to follow the rules...

there would be a crowd of posters here to lecture us on how we were being protected.

just those the government (federal/state/local) labels 'bad'...and in that way people can feel good about it. It's easier to accept bad things happening to bad people. They become accustomed to it. I recall how one of the excuses for torture being OK was because it was being done to "bad" people. I know of people who think rape only happens to "bad girls". That everyone in prison is guilty or they wouldn't have been convicted. It's all the same kind of thinking - there is just no way they'll end up in that kind of situation because they are just so good and bad things never happen to good people.

If the list of 'bad' people expands and increases over time, people are less likely to notice...or care.

Technology will continue to produce more and more ways of collecting information - and privacy concerns, along with Constitutional concerns, will grow. There's no stopping it.

That said, our liberty and our rights outweigh those advances. Where there is the potential for abuse, one can say with almost 100% certainty that such things will be abused.

Sadly, it's going to take abuses for a lot of people to see the danger in just blindly trusting in authority to not abuse its power.

Even more sad is - even with all the evidence over the course of history of authority abusing its power, people still want to believe it can't happen. ('here' or to them)

I don't know what the answer is but I do believe it has to start with protecting our rights first, last, and always.

One of the journalists stopped and cuffed in Chicago this weekend is a friend of mine. The police said they were looking for a care that matched their description. My friend was in a 1999 golden Lexus with New Mexico plates. I'm sure Chicago was crawling with those last weekend.

Nope. DHS has likely put out a glossy brochure that collects all the livestreamers, citizen journalists of the most active Occupies.

I was happy to read he made it home.

And they are bringing the evils of 'guvmint' Socialism with them. I'm not sure how a camera is going to come for my phone or my car. Perhaps it will hover menacingly like a super-annoying mosquito.

Address the privacy and militarization concerns. If we're not going to do that, then we shouldn't complain.

Drones are not cameras. And this weapons system has nothing to do with socialism. And you can't "address" privacy or militarization WHILE you permit drones in the air above our communities.

Otherwise, you're right.

Orwellian think all over the place.

will be gobbled up by stupid, frightened Americans. We've become a nation of assholes.

any and all intrusions in our lives that have all but ripped away "liberty, freedom and justice."

This new law, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 or P.L. 112-95, the President has added to control American's actions was done so with little public input or congressional interaction. Shouldn't clear guidelines and applications of expansive drone use have been done before the law passed? Or is it because the law was passed under our current President, who Democrats support, that no questions are necessary and no concerns that future Presidents may not have the best interests of the people in mind with this law?

For example: Should law enforcement be able to weaponize their drones? Is a search warrant needed when there's no probable cause to spy on a person or persons? What kind of information can be gathered with drones? Who will have access to such information and for what purpose will it be used? What legal rights do citizens have regarding access to such information? Can foreign governments apply for and be granted licenses to operate drones in US airspace? How much was FAA's budget increased to enact this law? How much will it cost to enforce?

Back in 2002, the ACLU said, "The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism. Do taxpayers care they've just increased the spy budget? Is this whole program a ruse to control "domestic terrorists?"

I seem to remember when people who predicted drones over the U.S. getting slapped down here at DU as some kind of conspiracy nuts. Oops.

Wake the hell up, America.

because of the Federal money being funneled to states and localities.

We're in a pickle.

and welcoming it's corporate and military masters.

I never thought I'd see a day when so many, on a supposedly Democratic/Liberal website, would welcome cameras peeking into their windows.

We are almost to the point where you are on video from the time you leave your house till the time you get home.

There are cameras on street corners, in parking lots, in shopping centers. ATM's, offices, government buildings, malls, warehouses, parks, beaches, restaurants, amusement parks, everywhere you go you are being watched.

And that's not the half of it. How bad ass do people think their government is? Do you think the government can spy on you through your webcam? They can. How about through your cell phone? They are. Privacy is a thing of the past, and apparently there are enough people on the left who welcome this that the rest of us are just fucked.

But most on here laugh at mention of David Icke and Alex Jones, who talked about this years ago...