Interesting questions

[void()]

The U.S. military are using remotely piloted weapons to attack enemies in other countries. There is speculation the same could be used for domestic patrols, weather to attack, or do surveillance. When this becomes domestic patrols it brings up some good questions.

If someone shoots a drone down, could it be legally seen as self defense?

Would that imply the person shooting a drone down is deemed an insurgent/enemy?

Also, if drones are used to discretely spy on us does that not violate our fourth amendment?

Will they need to adhere to filing a warrant before engaging in surveillance? Probable cause?

If we have such a high state of security, does it as Franklin stated strip us of all liberty?

No responses are needed. Hopefully, this post will at least cause some to think. Beyond that if you do want to respond that's fine. I'm interested in what others think. At the same time, I'm not interested in a holy war on the forum.

[Long Duck Dong]

interesting questions indeed and it covers a lot of different laws...lol

honestly, people give up liberties when they want to be safe in their own countries and homes..... its simply the lesser of two evils.....and I know that many people get their knickers in a knot over that, but the people that we go up against, are not giving a rats ass about rights and laws.... they are doing what they please, when they please, how they please..... so we create more laws to * protect * ourselves, then bitch when the laws do exactly that........

a lock only keeps a honest man out in the same way the rights to privacy only extend to what people keep quiet and do not post all over the internet lol........

I know here in NZ, everything is monitored..... and I really do not care, it doesn't bother me..... cos I also know how much of a hard time the cops and lawyers have, trying to get cases into court... and if there were drones flying over head, the only three lots of people that would really care, are the ones that have something to hide, the ones that want to complain and the conspiracy theorists

I want to live in a free society, so there are consequences to that... and one is that I have to choose between freedom and anarchy, a policed state or a no rules acknowledged state..... cos there is really not a compromise, just ask the criminals.....

[void()]

the only three lots of people that would really care, are the ones that have something to hide, the ones that want to complain and the conspiracy theorists

I want to live in a free society, so there are consequences to that...

One may face 'rendition' at any given time, i.e. rape in the archaic sense of the word by police for any, or no reason. The archaic sense of rape meaning to abduct in this case. Black bag over the head and whisked off without any warning, no notice to family, employers or anyone, you just vanish and cease existing.

You do not have to have anything to hide to respect being safe in your persons. And if it is complaining to suggest this might be wrong, the idea of marshal law and America as a battlefield, then I am allowed to complain. Yet now, it seems even to speak has become a crime against state. When they outlaw guns here, I'll be one of the outlaws for sure.

And no, being taken off the street isn't some conspiracy theory. It is in effect by our government. Anyone may be dubbed an enemy combatant, at which point no restrictions apply to police, or government in said person's treatment. Thank you Homeland Security.

Void wanders off to go live in WWII era Nazi Germany feeling it's probably the same as current era America.

[darkeyes]

To surrender hard won freedoms in the face of external threat is to present to our political masters something they would treasure... that we have been doing it increasingly for decades now, is no reason for pride, for not only does it mean that the external threat is winning but we present to those who rule over us the ideal conditions to control and oppress us. We are neither more secure or more safe... what we are is less free and in even greater danger. Neither should we allow freedoms to be lost due to internal threat... Liberty surrendered is liberty lost and an extremely difficult thing to recover and only increases the power of the state and those who would rule over us to assert control..

[Long Duck Dong]

hugs void....... you will have to excuse me for having no faith in humanity or society.... I lost that when I faced reality on a number of occasions......

military service..... they take you away, strip you of your humanity, your ideas, your understandings, put you in a uniform, put a weapon in your hands.... and then send you into the field to fight the enemy... and then you come home.... and you wonder just who is the enemy....

prison life... they take you away, strip you of all your personal belongs, your identity, put you in a uniform, and then put you in a cell to fight the solitude, the isolation, the lack of social interaction... and then you come out ... and you wonder just who are the prisoners.....

1 1/2 years in hospital, they take away your freedom, your ability to make choices about your own body, stick you in hospital garb and leave you to fight the pain, the med side effects, the never ending other patients....and then they release you.... and you wonder just who are the ones that are actually sick and in need for help.....

governments, they can take away your right of choices, they give you a number and tell you to pay taxes, put you in different categories but leave you to try and live on whatever you can make, beg, steal or borrow.... then they tell you how good you have it..... and you wonder just what ones of them have actually tried it......

religion, they take your money, give you a bible tell you to pray and be a good loving, caring christian, to be proud of who you are and to follow gods word, then they stand back and point fingers at everybody, judge them, condemn them, tell people how they are going to hell etc.... and you wonder who actually reads the bible and follows the teachings of jesus......

society, full of different people that all that talk about how great things could be if they were ran the right way by the right people in the right jobs, making the right choices for the right people at the right time......and how good it would be...... and you wonder why the hell they took something that was not broken and tried to fix it for the next 10k odd years in order to make people happy and can not work out that it will never work......

freedom in society for me, is simply my right to die, my choice of when I bugger off to what ever awaits me after I die.... cos there comes a time when a person stops fighting for what they believe in and simply fights to believe.....

those that have something to hide, are simply those that fear what they want, may not work....
those that want to complain, are simply those who express themselves about what is changing....
and the conspiracy theorists, are simply the ones that try and find reasons why.....

[æonpax]

The U.S. military are using remotely piloted weapons to attack enemies in other countries. There is speculation the same could be used for domestic patrols, weather to attack, or do surveillance. When this becomes domestic patrols it brings up some good questions.
While at the present time, limited, the US law enforcement is already using drones for surveillance

If someone shoots a drone down, could it be legally seen as self defense?

Doubtful.

Would that imply the person shooting a drone down is deemed an insurgent/enemy?

Depends on what you use to shoot it down, I guess. A 50mm machine gun in the backyard might work. But drones have a number of technological vulnerabilities that do not require the use of a firearm.

Also, if drones are used to discretely spy on us does that not violate our fourth amendment?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

Will they need to adhere to filing a warrant before engaging in surveillance? Probable cause?

Doubtful.

If we have such a high state of security, does it as Franklin stated strip us of all liberty?

Good rhetorical question.

No responses are needed.

None given.

Hopefully, this post will at least cause some to think.

Yeah...right.

Beyond that if you do want to respond that's fine.

Thank you.

I'm interested in what others think. At the same time, I'm not interested in a holy war on the forum.

No forum jihad, got it.



Post Script - This entire concept is frightening. My concern is not the pragmatic use of such a tool but how the government and private enterprise will eventually abuse it.

[void()]

The U.S. military are using remotely piloted weapons to attack enemies in other countries. There is speculation the same could be used for domestic patrols, weather to attack, or do surveillance. When this becomes domestic patrols it brings up some good questions.
While at the present time, limited, the US law enforcement is already using drones for surveillance

If someone shoots a drone down, could it be legally seen as self defense?

Doubtful.

Would that imply the person shooting a drone down is deemed an insurgent/enemy?

Depends on what you use to shoot it down, I guess. A 50mm machine gun in the backyard might work. But drones have a number of technological vulnerabilities that do not require the use of a firearm.

Also, if drones are used to discretely spy on us does that not violate our fourth amendment?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

Will they need to adhere to filing a warrant before engaging in surveillance? Probable cause?

Doubtful.

If we have such a high state of security, does it as Franklin stated strip us of all liberty?

Good rhetorical question.

No responses are needed.

None given.

Hopefully, this post will at least cause some to think.

Yeah...right.

Beyond that if you do want to respond that's fine.

Thank you.

I'm interested in what others think. At the same time, I'm not interested in a holy war on the forum.

No forum jihad, got it.



Post Script - This entire concept is frightening. My concern is not the pragmatic use of such a tool but how the government and private enterprise will eventually abuse it.

Danke, seems I'm not alone.

Depends on what you use to shoot it down, I guess. A 50mm machine gun in the backyard might work. But drones have a number of technological vulnerabilities that do not require the use of a firearm.

Was pondering that quite a lot. Slingshots are formidable, as are water hoses. I also think an old fashioned tire launching catapult might work too, especially if you fill a tire with maltov cocktails. Cattle prods might scramble them if you make a few adjustments. Hm, spud cannons.

Would suggest tiger gates but I'm sure they fly too high for them to be effective.

50mm machine gun. Chile! I gonna do dat ye be passing me an m14 carbide, or single shot 50 cal. No way I'm popping multiple rounds at one, it's one bit for one whirly jet. You spray them with multiple rounds, they can take evasive measures. Harder to predict where a single shot comes from, or when.

In evading they'd pop you more readily having multiple trajectories to triangulate by. A single shot could even be ricocheted, making it harder to acquire a target.

Post Script - This entire concept is frightening. My concern is not the pragmatic use of such a tool but how the government and private enterprise will eventually abuse it.

Mhm. Roger that.

Void wanders off to study up on radio signals.

[elian]

Certain agencies are already using drones, for example instead of a big helicopter in the sky with an infrared scope to find pot growers, some police departments are now using drones with infrared sensors to do the same thing..I doubt that they have a warrant to search for drug activity using the helicopter and from a certain distance in the sky I am not sure they really need one..

[void()]

Certain agencies are already using drones, for example instead of a big helicopter in the sky with an infrared scope to find pot growers, some police departments are now using drones with infrared sensors to do the same thing..I doubt that they have a warrant to search for drug activity using the helicopter and from a certain distance in the sky I am not sure they really need one..

I see. I'll just go out back and cover the crops with a foil mesh. That should break up heat signatures via obscurity in bouncing infrared back at them. Even a dumb country rube can look up how the French thwarted radar using foil. Not difficult to notice you use foil to bake potatoes on a grill, in an oven.

Why? Because foil reflects heat. It can probably also reflect laser mics so as to avoid the spy in the sky picking up the conversations of the illegal migrant workers I use harvesting the crops. While at it I'll just put on the tin foil hat, or maybe not considering microwaves can fry you from the reflection of the foil.

Think about it. If I can nullify the possibility of some fly boy spotting the crops just by figuring out how to effectively block their scanning systems, doesn't it seem ludicrous to not think other serious growers couldn't? Does it not further then annihilate the rationale 'to look for drug activity' to preform non-warranted searches?

And no, I'm not growing a thing. He more or less slung that label out there and I'm merely playing devil's advocate to articulate a point of ridiculousness. Thanks for insulting our intellect and trying to dumb us down G man. Not all of us like Kool Aid.

[byronvench]

More like "interesting speculation" . . not unlike "could the Hulk beat Superman" . .

You're talking about fiction . . call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that you're getting your panties all in a bunch over idle rumors.

Personally, I have better things to do with my time, but, hey - if you want to get yourselves all in a dither over nothing, that's entirely your prerogative.

[elian]

Thanks for insulting our intellect and trying to dumb us down G man. Not all of us like Kool Aid.

Well, the question was posed as if this were a hypothetical situation, I was merely pointing out that it's more than hypothetical that drones are being used domestically and with short-staffed police departments the use will most likely continue to expand. In the case of searching for illegal drugs I am sure they are able to justify it.

There are rules about airspace above private property, below a certain altitude threshold I think the area is still considered "private property" but above that threshold is public space - although I am not a lawyer so I don't really know these things. Suffice to say that I think they could make an arguement to do just about anything they want, the true test will be when the ACLU sues them in court over a potentially encroaching action.

[byronvench]

I love paranoia . . especially from the uninformed multitudes who'd rather be frightened of rumors than read facts . .

[void()]

I love paranoia . . especially from the uninformed multitudes who'd rather be frightened of rumors than read facts . .

Same multitudes were deliberately lied to and taken to war using fear. Wonder why it took a decade to find Bin Laden. Also wonder why he was not brought before a world trial with direct evidence confirming him as the leader and one whom ordered the attack. We were told there was "iron clad" proof it was so by Bush. If it was so guaranteed, why not present the evidence publicly in a world court? Maybe for the same reason we never found WMDs, they weren't there.

Been proven those in power don't give rat's ass about facts. They'll just gloss it all over later in the history books to play out fulfilling their lies. Why should we bother with facts then?

[darkeyes]

Same multitudes were deliberately lied to and taken to war using fear. Wonder why it took a decade to find Bin Laden. Also wonder why he was not brought before a world trial with direct evidence confirming him as the leader and one whom ordered the attack. We were told there was "iron clad" proof it was so by Bush. If it was so guaranteed, why not present the evidence publicly in a world court? Maybe for the same reason we never found WMDs, they weren't there.

Been proven those in power don't give rat's ass about facts. They'll just gloss it all over later in the history books to play out fulfilling their lies. Why should we bother with facts then?

It isn't as if the buggers have never given us things 2 b paranoid about is it, Voidie? Don't think I am paranoid but am very cynical cos every time a politician's lips move, out roll fibs and deceptions... and every day one gets out of bed his or her mind goes in2 overdrive to think up new ones espesh if he or she is in power... I do wish more peeps would question a bit more instead of having a go at us for doubting the secret state and its manipulators... their record stands for itself...

[jamieknyc]

"Black helicopters" used to be an obsession of the lunatic-fringe right. Today, the roles have become reversed.

[æonpax]

More like "interesting speculation" . . not unlike "could the Hulk beat Superman" . .
You're talking about fiction . . call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that you're getting your panties all in a bunch over idle rumors.
Personally, I have better things to do with my time, but, hey - if you want to get yourselves all in a dither over nothing, that's entirely your prerogative.

`

Pretty brash words, I daresay. I’m not sure you actually understand the gravity of this situation. Since 9/11, the government has taken it upon itself to chip away at our basic rights in the name of so-called “national security” with a foe that they (meaning both the government and corporations, especially the oil cartels) created themselves.

Domestic drones is a huge topic, perhaps not so much with the “American Idol” crowd, but with those whom are concerned about abstract conceptualizations such as “liberty” and “freedom.” Far be it from me to suggest that just because it’s not on the MSM agenda, that such reasonable and logical concerns are not being addressed and debated by other people.

Here’s a few links you may (or most likely, may not) want to read. While this issue isn’t currently as dramatic as Void hypothesizes it to be, his concern is REAL.

Rep. Markey proposes privacy rules for domestic drone licenses - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/0...rone-licenses/

Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...es-on-us-soil/

FAA Releases Lists of Drone Certificates—Many Questions Left Unanswered - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...ons-unanswered

Sen. Paul says no to domestic drones - http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...mestic-drones/
Please note: I was debating whether to include this link. Ron and Rand Paul (father/son) can get pretty extreme in some of their paleolibertarian dogma.. However, both are against wars for profit and are passionate about their right to privacy.

[void()]

"Black helicopters" used to be an obsession of the lunatic-fringe right. Today, the roles have become reversed.

Recently have been asked by a psychiatrist if I was paranoid. I replied back, "you watch the news lately?" She said she did. I then asked her what the difference between being aware and paranoid was. She clammed up only responding, "point taken." Another guy asked if my television spoke to me when it was off. I asked if the office had magically became mine because even asking such thing requires insanity somewhere and obviously not on my part.

But yes, I can admit to being a little nutty. Right or left really don't matter to me, all seems the same political bull. They all just want to attain and remain in power, will use any means it seems. I'm just a humble proletariat whom according to those in power, has no intellect. Rather eat herbs and grass than guilt and glamor barbed with slavery. More's a pity the fool instructs himself.

[Paddarick69]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/0...ner-dick-chene

[void()]

While this issue isn’t currently as dramatic as Void hypothesizes it to be, his concern is REAL.

I so love you now, as well. *chuckle* Agreed, it may not be so dramatic but I felt it merited some thought. I'm also considering a few other various points which I may have misinterpreted over the course of this decade. Thought an Executive order existed from Bush to activate First Battalion on American soil to route suspected insurgents. I'm probably wrong on that, misread / misheard something.

[Dog62]

Also, if drones are used to discretely spy on us does that not violate our fourth amendment?

Have you bothered to read the Constitution? Or at least the 4th amendment that you are asking about?

Will they need to adhere to filing a warrant before engaging in surveillance? Probable cause?

rr
Warrant? Probable Cause? For what?
Do you think they will fly this drone through your house? Do you honestly think that you have any expectation of privacy outside of your house? Even in your fenced back yard?

[Realist]

OMG! Back in the '80s when I lived/worked in northern Kentucky, I knew a father and son team of wanna-be militiamen, who'd come up with all kinds of theories about "Gumment" conspiracies. They said there was published proof that there was a secret move on, to turn the USA into an ultra police state!

I read some of their publications, where they got their "proof", which I thought of as mild entertainment. That's kind of like saying, "If its on the Internet, it's gotta be true!"

I remember one pamphlet with "proof" that the US had hired a complete Russian outfit as covert police. They were supposed to be stationed in a remote area of Mississippi. The Ruskies were equipped with all-black HIND helicopters, BMPs, and other Russian military equipment. These special Americanized Spetsnaz troops would be under control of someone secretly appointed and under the control of a secret government entity.

No fiction could have been more outlandish! (I hope)

But, now, although the above may seem ridiculous, I do suspect that there is a move on to spy on all of us, in ways we'd never believe, until recently.

I'm an old man, now, with little ability to do much about anything. But, if I were a young man, I'd probably be looking for a very remote hole to get in!

[gen11]

I think there might be something to that Russian unit in Mississippi busieness. I have memory traces of a story line, with some photographs; but I think it was supposed to be us training Russians in highly specialized tactics, well after detente. deep inside the huge and heavily wooded Camp Shelby, southeast of Hattiesburg. Don't go run off and say I said this is so -- but whatever I remember did not come from a stupid redneck conspiracy publication or blog -- I have never read those stupid things.

As far as domestic drones: Flat out, undeniable Police State doings. But we've already lost our Constitutional Republic thorugh citizen/voter inattention, laziness, and apathy. We live in the United States in name only, and we will never get our country back.

[void()]

Have you bothered to read the Constitution? Or at least the 4th amendment that you are asking about?

rr
Warrant? Probable Cause? For what?
Do you think they will fly this drone through your house? Do you honestly think that you have any expectation of privacy outside of your house? Even in your fenced back yard?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You mean that fourth amendment? Fuck no, never once read it.

A warrant to search in airspace over a person's property. Property could be seen as a person's effects. According to the amendment I have never read, a warrant is needed to search a person's effects, houses, persons, papers. Also accordingly to a modern legal opinion of a court one may keep their encryption pass phrases / passwords secure, as in not reveal them to police. Guess I really should read that fucking amendment.

I don't know if they'll fly a drone through my home. It would not surprise me if they did. They also do no knock raids on folks and have killed innocents, without even so much as an apology or admission of error. And after not reading that amendment, yes I do think one can expect to have privacy.

Really now, what makes you think someone would not read about the argument they sought to posit? Just trolling? Sorry, don't see any humor in it.

[void()]

As far as domestic drones: Flat out, undeniable Police State doings. But we've already lost our Constitutional Republic thorugh citizen/voter inattention, laziness, and apathy. We live in the United States in name only, and we will never get our country back.

I'm starting to agree. We really should have hung, drawn and quartered, burned, and fed Hamilton to the dogs, scattered part of him to the four winds. He seems to have been point man on the Whiskey Rebellion as well as getting us to establish a central bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve.

[jamieknyc]

Use of a drone for surveillance of public areas has been upheld by the courts. In that respect, it is not different from use of a police helicopter. Use of a drone to perform electronic surveillance inside your house would require a warrant.

[void()]

Use of a drone for surveillance of public areas has been upheld by the courts. In that respect, it is not different from use of a police helicopter. Use of a drone to perform electronic surveillance inside your house would require a warrant.

Okay, you say public areas. Does that mean private property is out of bounds? Say someone had one hundred acres of private land, would a warrant be needed?

And no, not trying to be 'smart' but rather trying to understand where boundary lines would lie. From my understanding if private property is marked and no trespass signs are up the property owner can shoot on sight legally.

[jamieknyc]

Criminal law is not my area of practive, but generally, under the so-called 'public view doctrine' criminal conduct that is visible from off your property is probable cause. That would include from the street, the air, or in the case of a motor vehicle, what the officer who pulls you over can see through the window.

'No trespassing' signs do NOT give you the right to shoot someone. You only have the right to do that if someone is breaking and entering your house. If you shoot someone for tresspassing on your 100 acres, you will not only be arrested, but the trespasser can sue you for damages. It is one of the few instances in which a criminal has the right to sue his victim.

I should add that you do not at any time have the right to shoot at law enforcement.

[void()]

Criminal law is not my area of practive, but generally, under the so-called 'public view doctrine' criminal conduct that is visible from off your property is probable cause. That would include from the street, the air, or in the case of a motor vehicle, what the officer who pulls you over can see through the window.

'No trespassing' signs do NOT give you the right to shoot someone. You only have the right to do that if someone is breaking and entering your house. If you shoot someone for tresspassing on your 100 acres, you will not only be arrested, but the trespasser can sue you for damages. It is one of the few instances in which a criminal has the right to sue his victim.

I should add that you do not at any time have the right to shoot at law enforcement.

Okay. Still have to question self defense regarding shooting at law enforcement. Sorry, if someone is shooting at me then isn't only justified to shoot back?

[elian]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...erican-citizen

[æonpax]

Okay. Still have to question self defense regarding shooting at law enforcement. Sorry, if someone is shooting at me then isn't only justified to shoot back?

Jamie's right you know. I'd put away this entire notion at shooting anything in the sky, be it with guns or lasers. This whole privacy notion, even apart from the drone issue, is still being debated, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ofprivacy.html and
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...-right-privacy

Drones have two major vulnerabilities; a) They are computer controlled and b) they are remotely controlled via radio waves. Either can be hacked into, however difficult it may be.

In a reasonably related development;

Pirate Bay plans to build aerial server drones with $35 Linux computer - The Pirate Bay (TPB), a popular BitTorrent website, experienced a brief stint of downtime this week. After restoring service, the site's operators confirmed that the outage was caused by routine maintenance and not a law enforcement raid. According to a blog post published by TPB, system upgrades were needed in order to accommodate the website's continuing growth.

In the blog post, TPB also announced plans for a future infrastructure upgrade. The group plans to move its front-end proxy servers into the sky, creating a network of small mobile computers that are tethered to GPS-enabled aerial drones. The airborne computers, called Low Orbit Server Stations (LOSS), will supposedly be harder for law enforcement agencies to terminate. TPB contends that any attempt to ground its vessels will be viewed as an act of war. - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...inux-computer/