zlacker

[return to "US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis"]
1. pm90+Qf[view] [source] 2020-05-29 18:33:49
>>pera+(OP)
This was very predictable. Tools invented for military operations abroad eventually, predictably find their way back domestically.

Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.

I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.

◧◩
2. beambo+Mg[view] [source] 2020-05-29 18:37:26
>>pm90+Qf
Where do you draw the distinction between a drone (presumably unarmed) vs a police helicopter?
◧◩◪
3. Alupis+QH[view] [source] 2020-05-29 21:01:19
>>beambo+Mg
I think we first need to determine what is upsetting about this, specifically.

Is it that they are flying a UAV that was originally designed for military use?

Or is it that they are flying a UAV period?

What if it was a new UAV, designed just for law enforcement? No problems then?

Presumably this UAV has no weapons on it, so I'm unsure what the problem could be unless we just flat oppose former military equipment being used?

It's safer and cheaper to fly a UAV than a manned vehicled - helicopters crash routinely and need multiple crews to keep them on station for extended duration. If it was a decommissioned military UAV that's being repurposed - then the tax payer has been saved a great deal of money as well.

So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?

◧◩◪◨
4. Barrin+601[view] [source] 2020-05-29 23:05:34
>>Alupis+QH
>So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?

The ongoing militarization of state level police forces without the democratic consent of the governed for a start?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Alupis+S31[view] [source] 2020-05-29 23:33:32
>>Barrin+601
> democratic consent of the governed

Just playing devil's advocate - but this is democratically consented to.

Your elected politicians have specifically allowed the sale or transfer of retired military equipment to state and local police forces, for multiple reasons but the least-of-which was cost savings vs. scrapping all the prepaid equipment.

Similar, but admittedly not quite the same, to the sale of demilitarized Humvees, tanks and fighter jets to civilians. Or NASA owning and operating former US Navy F/A-18's, B-52's and more... war machines now repurposed for peaceful training and aeronautical research.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Barrin+q91[view] [source] 2020-05-30 00:22:05
>>Alupis+S31
Yeah in the same sense of how we all democratically opted in to mass surveillance or encryption breaking. Let's be honest the people who are at the receiving end of this technology haven't been democratically decided anything in a long time. What this actually is, is what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism and when it comes to these police measures that's not even an exaggeration.

Just as a random question, how many people do you think know that these guys (https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-night...) are flying above American cities

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Alupis+pa1[view] [source] 2020-05-30 00:30:24
>>Barrin+q91
The solution is to vote-out the out-of-touch career politicians then, no?

I have a suspicion, being a Senator for 40 years sort of removes you from the concerns of everyday Americans.

These are the same Senators (and Representatives) that vote for these measures. They'll never be the target of these surveillance schemes... and when they are, they throw a huge fit[1] because they're supposedly above all of it. They're the same people who ban guns from the public, but own operate and illegally traffic them themselves[2].

They're the same ones that don't have to be strip searched every time they fly, but I digress...

[1] https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/13/pelosi-alle...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/2...

[go to top]