Chuck Schumer Tells Apple and Google To "Curb Your Spy Planes"

It is no coincidence by Cornwallis · 2012-06-20 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

that "WTSHTF" is often referred to as "When the Schumer Hits the Fan".

Re:It is no coincidence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:05 · Score: 1

That's Chuck-U Schumer to you pal!
Re:It is no coincidence by durrr · 2012-06-20 04:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Warning people before is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of seeing people spreading their buttcheeks to the sky on every single map that's availible.
Re:It is no coincidence by LifesABeach · 2012-06-20 07:13 · Score: 2

I was thinking of certain public figures taking campaign donations in public. "Film at 11."

Whats Up Chuck? by RapidEye · 2012-06-20 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny

So what is Chuck doing in his back yard that he doesn't want everyone to see, hmmm????

--
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."

Re:Whats Up Chuck? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:45 · Score: 1, Funny

Chuck Schumer has never come out and explicitly said he is not a dog fucker, he must be hiding something, why hasn't NY Rep Peter King had an inquest and congressional meeting about this?
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by Nimey · 2012-06-20 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny

All we're asking for is a simple yes or no: did Chuck Schumer fuck a dog to death in 1990? We're just /asking questions/. Why can't the senator put this to rest?

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by kieran · 2012-06-20 05:12 · Score: 2

I dunno exactly, but it's bigger than 4 inches.
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by datavirtue · 2012-06-20 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is opposed under the guise of protecting or fighting for the common man who doesn't yet know that he doesn't want Google taking a picture of his yard. More likely, it is paranoid companies (campaign contributors) who are worried about possible the backlash from people finding out about their unethical environmental practices that are still grandfathered in.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by datavirtue · 2012-06-20 07:32 · Score: 2

Just answer the question Mr Schumer!! Did, You, Fuck, Your, Dog YESTERDAY?!

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by rwven · 2012-06-20 07:43 · Score: 2

Obviously his desire to remain private is admission of guilt. TSA rules, anyway.
Re:Whats Up Chuck? by toriver · 2012-06-20 08:50 · Score: 1

Or even better: Has he stopped fucking dogs? It's a simple yes-or-no question.

Security by obscurity? by mschiller · 2012-06-20 03:43 · Score: 2

Come on there must be better way... Perhaps by having a raid array of the appropriate infrastructure?

Re:Security by obscurity? by Zerth · 2012-06-20 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Plus, if you want a complete map of the water infrastructure, you can just asked the water company and they will /give/ it to you.
Re:Security by obscurity? by ff1324 · 2012-06-20 06:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

You can ask, but you can't get it. At least not here.
We purchased ArcGIS to evaluate our responses at the fire department I work for. The county, highway department, assessors office, and other 911 centers were more than happy to share data with us. The water company wouldn't. We were originally told their security policy would not allow them to share data with us.
That's right. The water company could not tell the fire department where the fire hydrants are because of security policy.
Total WTF moment...
Re:Security by obscurity? by networkBoy · 2012-06-20 06:40 · Score: 2

No no no, you see that would make sense. The government at no point whatsoever should attempt to make sense, if making of sense is found to have happened it must be destroyed ASAP.
I as an independent citizen must also not have access to water company information before I dig, because that too would make sense, hence the river through my backyard when a neighbor (who *did* call first) ruptured an 8 inch main.
If I was a terrorist, planning on causing a pressure fault in one segment of water service while inducing a severe water hammer in another were to ask, I would be provided with not only the layout of the system; I would helpfully be given specifications to all the valves and suppressors used as well.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Security by obscurity? by datavirtue · 2012-06-20 07:33 · Score: 1

Try a records request under the sunshine laws.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Security by obscurity? by prehistoricman5 · 2012-06-20 08:19 · Score: 1

I am currently working on a very large project to replace hundreds of switches on my campus. Naturally part of this involves finding them first and sometimes it can be challenging because the building has no sane numbering system. Of course, the easy method would be to simply look at the plans, but nobody in the entire network operations group has access to them. The reason: 9/11.

--
Fuck Beta
Re:Security by obscurity? by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-20 11:47 · Score: 2

Your campus (I'm assuming College/University) is worried that terrorirsts are going to physically attack their networking gear?!?
Re:Security by obscurity? by mschiller · 2012-06-21 05:55 · Score: 1

Apparently, pushing refresh and then posting a reply comment is not sufficient. The backend for Slashdot must not be fully synchronous. We must have posted at the same time and non had made the comments page yet, even though they were working their way through the database.
Re:Security by obscurity? by uninformedLuddite · 2012-06-21 14:21 · Score: 1

They're probably more worried that they might want to use their toilets.

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Re:Security by obscurity? by prehistoricman5 · 2012-06-21 15:14 · Score: 1

It's public so I'm assuming that it has more to do with inane government regulations than someone actually thinking.

--
Fuck Beta

fear everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

let's completely ignore the societal and economic benefits of such technology because ... fear, people. Fear.

Re:fear everything! by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-06-20 03:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah.. give corporations the same rights as governments. That always works out for the best.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 03:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Private individuals as well as corporations have been doing areal photography for private use since around 1860.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 03:58 · Score: 1

*Aerial photography.
Damn typo

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by Guspaz · 2012-06-20 04:15 · Score: 2

Clearly somebody has clearly not been watching Continuum.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 04:17 · Score: 1

But since corporations can influence the government to use guns to force you to comply with their plans I would have to say that they are even more dangerous than the government on their own.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by iluvcapra · 2012-06-20 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.

Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.
Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:fear everything! by GungaDan · 2012-06-20 04:27 · Score: 3, Funny

*Areola photography.
FTFY.

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Re:fear everything! by khipu · 2012-06-20 05:10 · Score: 2

Give corporations the same rights as any other group of people, no more and no less.
Re:fear everything! by readin · 2012-06-20 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which is another reason the government should be extremely limited, so that it can't be a powerful tool of anyone.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:fear everything! by Sentrion · 2012-06-20 05:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Only governments have the right to use guns
That used to be the case but no longer is.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0910-07.htm
"Privatization" is the primary agenda of the corporate sponsored Tea Party and related movements. The goals are to dismantle the government offices and subcontract those roles to private corporations (on the presumption that government-run organizations are inherently inefficient and waste taxpayer dollars). Multi-national conglomerates already "own" the US Congress through aggressive lobbying, kickbacks for campaign funding, and the promise of highly compensated future roles as consultants, senior executives, or board members for today's politicians, judges, and appointed officials. The mega-corporations are to US government what the cocaine and heroine cartels are to the Mexican government.
To give you an idea, here's a quick summary of the transitions sought or already begun:
WAS - NOW
Regulatory Agencies - Self-regulation
Public Utilities - Same utilities but customers now have to buy through specially qualified "distributors" of the same utility rather than direct
Public Courts - Private Arbitration (many judges today are issuing one-sided pro-business decisions in the hope of landing a better paid position as a private arbitrator at one of the major firms. Arbitration proceedings do not have to follow state or federal rules of procedure, appeals are limited, legal precedant does not apply, there is never any jury of peers, and rulings do not even need to abide by the US Constitution)
Collections Agencies - Sheriffs and Judges (ok, this is a reversal, but not a good one, and one that serves corporate interests and re-institutes debtor's prisons: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html )
Corrections Facilities - Private Prisons (and much incentive to fill them regardless of guilt or innocence: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal )
CIA - Private contractors (including foreign nationals. No oath of service or duty to uphold the Constitution. Can violate US and international law while not accountable to anyone outside of their employment contract)
US Armed Forces - See above
State Law Enforcement - See above
Public Schools - Vouchers for Private Schools (non-sectarian schools have limited capacity. In a "free market" your kids would likely end up in a fundamentalist religious school). In time the vouchers would go away as they are not a product of the "free market" and make the system unworkable.
Fire Departments - Private Fire Departments http://www.salon.com/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department/
The "benefits" of privatization have been debunked for most roles of government http://umaine.edu/ble/files/2011/01/Privatization-BP-08.pdf
But privatization is still pushed as a cure-all in election campaign ads. I could go on, but as I show above, "privatization" eventually eliminates all of your Constitutional rights and protections. Once the corporations OWN the government AND the guns, who is going to help you? I'd rather not give corporations any more rights than they already have, especially since they are now considered "people" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.
Re:fear everything! by readin · 2012-06-20 05:31 · Score: 1

Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.

Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.

Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!
Cool! an ad hominem and a strawman rolled into one!

I didn't say the government shouldn't do anything. In fact I specifically listed at least one thing the government should do - keep guns (and by implication use them when necessary). I agree with the need for anti-trust law. What I disagree with is the presumption articulated by liberals like George W Bush who famously said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." In fact before government moves we should spend some serious thought on whether the problem can be addressed without government involvement. Will enlightened self-interest lead to a solution? Can charities step in? What are the potential unintended consequences of government action? If government action turns out to be a mistake will it be corrected or will it, having the force of law and continue forever? Even if charities and business can't or won't address a problem, will the cure of putting a government gun to people's head to force them into involuntary servitude of fixing the problem - will that cure be worse than the problem we're hoping to fix?

Liberty has an intrinsic value that is difficult to measure in terms of money, health and security. We know our forefather's risked and many sacrificed their money, health and security for the sake of liberty. What value do we place on liberty today?

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:fear everything! by readin · 2012-06-20 05:32 · Score: 1

bah! bad formatting!

Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.

Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.
Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!
Cool! an ad hominem and a strawman rolled into one!

I didn't say the government shouldn't do anything. In fact I specifically listed at least one thing the government should do - keep guns (and by implication use them when necessary). I agree with the need for anti-trust law. What I disagree with is the presumption articulated by liberals like George W Bush who famously said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." In fact before government moves we should spend some serious thought on whether the problem can be addressed without government involvement. Will enlightened self-interest lead to a solution? Can charities step in? What are the potential unintended consequences of government action? If government action turns out to be a mistake will it be corrected or will it, having the force of law and continue forever? Even if charities and business can't or won't address a problem, will the cure of putting a government gun to people's head to force them into involuntary servitude of fixing the problem - will that cure be worse than the problem we're hoping to fix?

Liberty has an intrinsic value that is difficult to measure in terms of money, health and security. We know our forefather's risked and many sacrificed their money, health and security for the sake of liberty. What value do we place on liberty today?

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:fear everything! by jasonq · 2012-06-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Blackwater, anybody?
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 06:18 · Score: 1

The power vacuum will be filled by others. It's too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by Stele · 2012-06-20 06:20 · Score: 2

Yeah yeah but where is the areola photography?
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 06:31 · Score: 2

google image search areola and you shall find what you seek.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by Sentrion · 2012-06-20 06:34 · Score: 2

... too bad you didn't study what happened in countries with weak central governments and strong individuals/corporations.
I tried. I even ordered the textbook, but the pages were ripped out and replaced with a Monsanto seed catalog.
Re:fear everything! by clarkkent09 · 2012-06-20 06:35 · Score: 2

Only the government has the right to take pictures from the air? What constitution are you reading?

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:fear everything! by mosb1000 · 2012-06-20 06:36 · Score: 1

If you create a power vacuum by limiting government, then corporations will move in.
That's the plan. Almost anything would better than what we have now.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 06:45 · Score: 2

So the highly detailed aerial photography is just fine, as long as it's not available to the masses?
Please remember that you can get detailed aerial photos of anywhere in the US for a fee, excluding classified places such as Area 22-C.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by operagost · 2012-06-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Considering how many "rights" governments have confiscated for themselves, I agree that would be horrible.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:fear everything! by operagost · 2012-06-20 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can't think of any such nation in history, unless you're counting narco states. I don't understand why people think that even supposedly democratic governments are inherently less corrupt than publicly held corporations. You buy your votes in both.
Your post just seems like a nihilist form of advocacy for authoritarianism, like a fascist Eeyore. "Can't win; guess we might as well have a dictator and fake elections 'cause at least it's better than being run by corporations. OOOOO-kay."

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:fear everything! by datavirtue · 2012-06-20 07:36 · Score: 1

ok, I'm back, and I thought I'de share this with you: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=areola&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=1099&tbm=isch&tbnid=3axdD15iBWbapM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gfmer.ch/selected_images_v2/detail_list.php%3Fcat1%3D2%26cat3%3D1403%26stype%3Dd&docid=19wEwHRMq6wN_M&imgurl=http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/figures/1752-1947-4-22-1-l.jpg&w=1004&h=678&ei=yiXiT6T4AYyi8gT2uJ2GCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=196&vpy=458&dur=447&hovh=171&hovw=243&tx=125&ty=79&sig=112669268268485749733&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=208&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0,i:134
Thanks a lot asshole!

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:fear everything! by clarkkent09 · 2012-06-20 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your entire post is made up of the liberal's standard mythology - evil rich corporations are taking away our rights etc. I am too lazy to reply to all the nonsense in there but let me just make two points: subcontracting is not the same thing as privatizing. Military/Police/CIA/Courts are not being privatized and nobody on the right or in the Tea Party (btw not sponsored by corporations) has suggested that they should be. Public Schools, Public Utilities are being privatized all over the world, especially in Europe, and if they are not they should be, and you give no reasons why they shouldn't be except ridiculous ones (all our kids will end up in fundamentalist schools!?).

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:fear everything! by Fjandr · 2012-06-20 07:46 · Score: 1

like a fascist Eeyore. "Can't win; guess we might as well have a dictator and fake elections 'cause at least it's better than being run by corporations. OOOOO-kay."
The above conjured some of the most disturbingly hilarious imagery for me. Thank you for that.
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 07:56 · Score: 1

Yes, because I can see the danger of making the government as small as possible without totally collapsing it, I automatically endorse dictators. Now that we have that stupid fallacy out of the way, let me count a few:
France circa 1400.
Germany circa 1500-1700.
Italy circa 1400-1600
Afghanistan, circa now.
China, circa 1900.
And yes, every single Narco state counts.
Those are just off the top of my head.
Finally, I hope you actually do understand the difference between living in a democracy and living in a corporation, and that you were just trying to go for a cheap rhetorical image. Otherwise - please don't vote.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 08:01 · Score: 1

Wow. Just wow. "Almost anything"? You truly have no idea of history or the rest of the world. Almost nothing would actually be better, just based on history.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by mosb1000 · 2012-06-20 08:15 · Score: 1

Almost nothing is exactly what we'll have if we don't get our fiscal affairs in order right away. And no, I don't think that will be better.

You truly have no idea of history or the rest of the world. Almost nothing would actually be better, just based on history.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their empire right before it collapsed.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 08:21 · Score: 1

So you would prefer to live in China? Russia? Columbia? Iran? Would those be better than what we have now?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 08:30 · Score: 1, Troll

And this is why I facepalm every time a libertarian starts to talk. Military, police and courts are being privatized. I know the gp didn't specifically source these items, but I thought Blackwater, mall cops and arbitration were well-known concepts. Public schools are most certainly not being privatized in Europe, public utilities are under severe regulatory straight jackets, and there still are quite a few public companies in Europe, specifically in the Infrastructure business. I also love how you unilaterally throw out any counter examples by simply saying "well they shouldn't exist!", as well as just declaring any reasons you disagree with as "ridiculous".
There is only one mythology, and it is the libertarian one.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Phew, I was expecting much worse when I clicked on that.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by mosb1000 · 2012-06-20 08:33 · Score: 1

I don't know, I've never been to any of those places. But if you haven't either, you should consider that they may not be as bad as you had been led to believe.
Re:fear everything! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 08:47 · Score: 1

So you think that since those places may not be as bad as you had been led to believe that therefor you think that they may be even better than living here?
Although logically that is an interesting argument, practically it's retarded.
We live in a world of constant communication, I can pull up satellite maps of any of those places, I can research their current state of being as well as their past from multiple sources. I can and have talked to people from those places, I can watch their newscasts and read their laws.
Just because I have not been to those places that doesn't mean that I shouldn't believe the many trusted sources of information about those places I can access.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:fear everything! by Paracelcus · 2012-06-20 08:56 · Score: 2

If you object to being terrorized by your government, you must be a terrorist!
We're only detaining you and your family for you're own good! Now take off your clothes and get in line for a shower.

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:fear everything! by Nimey · 2012-06-20 09:18 · Score: 1

The Internet is a wonderful thing.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 09:41 · Score: 1

Almost nothing is exactly what we'll have if we don't get our fiscal affairs in order right away.
Nice way to change the topic.

I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their empire right before it collapsed.
What's your point - that we're about to be invaded by the Visigoths? Or is it that you're trying to make some appeal to emotion by equating two wholly unrelated situations?

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by detritus. · 2012-06-20 09:48 · Score: 1

Yeah.. give corporations the same rights as governments. That always works out for the best.
No, restrain governments to the same rights as corporations, as intended and written in the constitution.
Re:fear everything! by oldspicepuresport · 2012-06-20 10:15 · Score: 1

And this is why I facepalm every time a libertarian starts to talk. Military, police and courts are being privatized. I know the gp didn't specifically source these items, but I thought Blackwater, mall cops and arbitration were well-known concepts.
Are all left-leaning people advocates of authoritarian communism? Are all right-leaning people advocates of fascism? Of course not, to suggest so would be just as ignorant as suggesting that "libertarians" are all advocates of anarchy. You are painting anyone you disagree with with an extremist brush, and this is why I facepalm every time a self-righteous prick shows how ignorant they are.

Public schools are most certainly not being privatized in Europe, public utilities are under severe regulatory straight jackets, and there still are quite a few public companies in Europe, specifically in the Infrastructure business.
What are you trying to say here? Many countries in Europe do in fact have a hybrid public-private schooling system, most also have a hybrid public-private health care system, public utilities in Europe are among the most expensive on earth, and "the infrastructure business" is almost completely privatized (unless there are state-owned construction companies that no one has ever heard of...). Privatization doesn't mean what you think it means.

I also love how you unilaterally throw out any counter examples by simply saying "well they shouldn't exist!", as well as just declaring any reasons you disagree with as "ridiculous".
As opposed to you doing the exact same thing? You offer no evidence to back up what you're saying, but have no problem calling out people you disagree with... pot, meet kettle.

There is only one mythology, and it is the libertarian one.
The stupidity of this statement speaks for itself.
Re:fear everything! by catmistake · 2012-06-20 10:28 · Score: 1

google image search areola and you shall find what you seek.
Google Boob and Google Boob Pro apps are also available, both still in Beta, of course.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:fear everything! by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-06-20 10:29 · Score: 1

Best laugh I've had all week!

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:fear everything! by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-06-20 10:32 · Score: 1

And I quote Roger Waters:
"Each man has his price Bob/And yours was pretty low"

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:fear everything! by iluvcapra · 2012-06-20 10:45 · Score: 1

George W Bush who famously said, "We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
George W. Bush, for all his faults, at least recognized (and only in a pinch) that the legitimacy of any American government rests on its ability to deliver prosperity and the promise of a better life in the future, and that any first world government that dedicates itself to merely "making it possible" is doomed.

Even if charities and business can't or won't address a problem, will the cure of putting a government gun to people's head to force them into involuntary servitude of fixing the problem
I find this characterization of public works to be inflammatory and deeply offensive. When was the last time the United States government "put a gun to people's heads" to work an economic policy? A policy of any kind? Even if they throw you in jail they're not going to point a gun at you. I know you're being sarcastic but it's a comically inaccurate depiction of how government power works... it's only become fashionable to talk about "legitimate violence" that way in the last 50-75 years, and only because so much 20th-century poll sci scholarship was focused on explaining totalitarianism. I assure you John Locke, the Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke and Robert Taft would have found your quoted sentence above as non-sensical as I do.
Your conception of government action, relying on a so-called "monopoly of violence," and standing in opposition to "liberty," is facile and doesn't take into account cultural hegemony or a state's power to lead concerted action without duress.

What value do we place on liberty today?
I cannot interpret this statement as anything other than passing judgment on modern Americans for the terrible crime of having different cultural values from 200-year-old slave-owning gentlemen farmers. Every time someone wonders if the Founders would approve of government policy, God kills a kitten.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:fear everything! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 17:35 · Score: 1

to suggest so would be just as ignorant as suggesting that "libertarians" are all advocates of anarchy.
A certain brand of "libertarians" is: specifically, the Randians. Unfortunately, it is the prevalent brand of libertarianism in the US. So yes, US libertarians are as a general rule advocates of anarchy.
Want to try again?

Many countries in Europe do in fact have a hybrid public-private schooling system,

What does that have to do with existing public schools being privatized? Oh, right, nothing.

most also have a hybrid public-private health care system,
What does that have to do with schools, military and police? Oh, right, nothing.

public utilities in Europe are among the most expensive on earth
Citation needed. Not to mention - what does that have to do with their existence? Oh, right, nothing?

and "the infrastructure business" is almost completely privatized
You do understand that infrastructure goes beyond just buildings? Right?

You offer no evidence to back up what you're saying,
Do you support every single statement you make with a citation? Certain things are assumed to be part of an educated discussion. Not to mention: stones in glasshouses, etc.

but have no problem calling out people you disagree with
Clearly, your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't call him out because I disagreed with him. I called him out because his entire argument consisted of factually incorrect statements and "nuh-uh". Something that sadly is common among the US version of libertarians.
So. Wanna try this again?

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:fear everything! by Sentrion · 2012-06-21 04:55 · Score: 1

If you are "truly free" as you describe in Anarcho-Libertarian terms, then you will likely end up with a Roman-style fire department.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting: "...Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value..."
After 2000 years of development your suggestion is to go back to an archaic scheme, except that yours involves pre-paying in advance for a service you will most likely never need (hey, more profit for the rich. That's a good thing, right? After all, they're job creators - even though you had a better job or business before you needed to become their servant). Requiring such a fixed fee with such a drastic consequence is a hard position to put someone into when they are having financial trouble (which can happen to anybody, regardless of how smart or hard working you are). I would hate to see how a Libertarian would talk a suicidal person standing on a ledge - probably "JUMP!"
Under our current system in most American communities, taxes are assessed based on property values. If you're poor and own a shabby little shack, you pay less tax but you still (in theory) get the same police and fire protection. If you're too poor to own and have to rent, your landlord pays the tax from a portion of your rent. If you are really poor there are usually programs available to help you make ends meet, such as housing subsidies (which can be quite profitable for savvy landlords), and you still get police and fire protection. So for all the people who aren't paying their taxes, no, the IRS doesn't come in with guns blazing. Those who make plenty of money but chose to not pay their taxes do get raided. I'm not saying that's the best system, but yours leaves the financially disadvantaged in smoldering ruins.
And you're wrong about LIVES on the line. There were pets inside that died. They might have possibly been rescued but a system that pits haves against have-nots got in the way. Give a system like this enough time and a Dickensonian dystopia will set in. The economic viability of the persons trapped inside will be considered before rescue is attempted, on the basis that "there just aren't enough resources to save everybody" (which has always been and still is utter bullshit). Don't believe it? - There's already a large number of Libertarians and Conservatives who think that illegal immigrants should not receive emergency-room treatment. It only takes a little time and some profit-motivated rationalization to desensitize decision makers to undervalue human life.
There is also too much chance of administrative errors getting in the way of providing an essential service that EVERYBODY needs (imagine you did pay but the records were not updated and your house was left to burn. Sure you could sue, but that's AFTER the unnecessary destruction, and you won't have enough money for a decent lawyer). Given that most of the world's wealth is held by a small minority, such Anarcho-Libertarian will lead to the middle class losing whatever they have left and the wealthy few taking it all. When you look at the history of human civilization that seems to be the natural order of things. It's probably destined to happen sooner or later. The fact that so many middle-class individuals fall into such Anarcho-Libertarian and Neo-Conservative reasoning defies all logic. Reminds me of my brother-in-law - he works 70 hours a week but has tens of thousands in medical debt and just lost his home, but when it comes to politics he is convinced that Obama-Care will make his situation worse. In his mind he is lucky the Dems didn't pass legislation for universal health coverage like you get in Canada, UK, and much of

Same was said with a lot of tech by MozeeToby · 2012-06-20 03:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.

Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth. If I have a privacy fence up... well, it's to protect my privacy. Taking pictures from a low flying drone isn't much different than leaning a ladder against the fence and climbing up to peer over. On the other hand, it's a one time thing (or at least rare) and the same viewing angle can be achieved any number of ways that people don't have a problem with (if nothing else manned aircraft). I think I'm actually going to have to think about this one a bit...

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by SJHillman · 2012-06-20 03:54 · Score: 2

I wouldn't want someone to be watching me in real-time, but I'd be ok with a snapshot of my property every few years - especially given the potential advantages.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Gription · 2012-06-20 03:54 · Score: 2

It wasn't "to prevent people using it for terrorist activities". This was before the 911 "hide in your closet" era. They were protecting against foreign countries using the system.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by vlm · 2012-06-20 04:01 · Score: 4, Informative

GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.
LOL rewriting history .mil always had the high precision codes, at least I/we did in the early 90s. I forget the nickname our handbag sized GPS receivers had, it was a long time ago. The main point was making sure our grunts on the ground could give their exact grid square to artillery support, but the other guys wouldn't have the tech. Eventually it became fairly pointless to restrict anymore, once everyone had cheap RX and it never really materialized as a tactical problem.
Also some concern about ICBM and cruise missile nav points.
It was never, until post 9/11 history rewriting, about terrorism.
To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · 2012-06-20 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

I really fail to see how this should be treated any different than someone flying 100 ft or 10,000 ft over your house and looking down. Just because the camera is insanely better than a human eye and it can be stored perpetually should be inconsequential. If you want progress, you can't legislate technology. This is like Google driving around on public roads to take pictures and collect WiFi info. Just because they did it on a large scale shouldn't make it illegal. These arbitrary lines drawn by government (or people simply requesting them) are crazy.
When you have a neighbor, you put up a fence. If someone looks over the fence, too bad for you; build it higher. If someone flies over the top, put a roof up.
Wait until we have contact lenses like the Google Glasses. These arbitrary lines are going to stop innovation. You won't be able to use it because it can process too much information, when it would probably revolutionize society.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by oobayly · 2012-06-20 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative

You're thinking of Selective Availability, which degraded precision giving errors of up to 100m, not 1,000m. As others said it was done to prevent foreign military from using the full capabilities of GPS,
As a bit of an anecdote, I remember my uncle complaining of how his GPS was inaccurate compared to the previous day whilest laying marks for some dinghy racing. I made a quip about the Americans probably bombing some country. That evening the news was full of pictures of Tomahawks being fired into Afganistan. I became a bit more careful making facetious comments that day.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · 2012-06-20 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

What about someone's freedom to watch you real-time? You need to take appropriate measures to stop it by being on private property inside a building and away from windows. It is your responsibility to protect your privacy.
As mentioned in another window, wait for things like Google Glasses. Everything could be recorded everywhere. You can't make the glasses illegal. You can't make a law that says, "When technology is too good, it can't do this or that".
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Jeng · 2012-06-20 04:20 · Score: 1

To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.

Why with that information terrorists could drop anthrax right down your AC duct from 20,000 feet!!!!
Or maybe not.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Jeng · 2012-06-20 04:28 · Score: 2

Also there are any number of companies that will do aerial photography of properties for a fee.
Then again there are also a number of ways one can do their own aerial photography.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tqk · 2012-06-20 04:37 · Score: 2

To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.
How unimaginative you are. High accuracy would enable you to fly a swarm of C4 laden RC planes into the center court of the Pentagon, or to the front doors of Congress.
I've read of plenty of battles where the opposing sides were a lot closer than one klick away from each other. Should the "fast movers" take out their guys, your guys, or does it matter?

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by RobertLTux · 2012-06-20 04:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

the thing is tech should always be "polite" when it has capabilities to this level.
I have no problems with a sat shot of my house every 9 months or so.
what i have a problem with is somebody filming my house 24/7/52
photo showing that my backyard has a pool = not a problem
film of my 5 year old daughter swimming in said pool = BIG PROBLEM
so your rights to film my property end at the point where my rights to forcefully defend said property.
(aka i need to be able to file an OPT OUT with you)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by malakai · 2012-06-20 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

I think GP was talking about Selective Availability (SA). Basically an intentional error that limited accuracy of commercial GPS to 30-100m. It was turned off 5/2/2000. Ever since then we've had 95% 10m accuracy, but the DOD has the ability to selectively re-enable SA on individual satellites. The thought being, if we see a couple of cruise missiles ( or a missile boat ) within range of the US, we can disrupt GPS so it can't be used against us. As a defensive layer, this ability no longer packs the same punch as it did back in the day. Terrain contour matching ( TERCOM ) is cheap and 'easy' these days with the processors and power available to avionic packages. I don't doubt if you google for it, someone's built a TERCOM system for their hobby RC plane by now.
Either way, it wasn't about _terrorism_ so much as it was about nation vs nation war.

--
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · 2012-06-20 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is an administrative nightmare. You are drawing up exceptions to the freedom of another individual. Do you own the image/video of yourself and/or your property?
I understand that you would WANT it to be illegal for someone to watch your 5 yr old daughter swimming, but what about the freedom of someone else watching them? Do you draw the line with video cameras? The risk, because private property is everywhere, is that video cameras would then be illegal. Eventually, all technology would be illegal, because they could potentially record/tape someone one private property.
What about my memories of your private property? Do we have to have a neutralizer wipe them from my memory? The more lines you need to draw in the sand, the more lawyers, politicians, and lobbying you have to deal with. The more of that, the higher cost on society. All because you didn't put a roof over your pool.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tlhIngan · 2012-06-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I think GP was talking about Selective Availability (SA). Basically an intentional error that limited accuracy of commercial GPS to 30-100m. It was turned off 5/2/2000. Ever since then we've had 95% 10m accuracy, but the DOD has the ability to selectively re-enable SA on individual satellites. The thought being, if we see a couple of cruise missiles ( or a missile boat ) within range of the US, we can disrupt GPS so it can't be used against us. As a defensive layer, this ability no longer packs the same punch as it did back in the day. Terrain contour matching ( TERCOM ) is cheap and 'easy' these days with the processors and power available to avionic packages. I don't doubt if you google for it, someone's built a TERCOM system for their hobby RC plane by now.
There's actually another aspect of GPS that's little known - there are limits placed on GPS receivers by the government. Basically a civillian (C/A) receiver must disable itself once its calculated speed and altitude go above certain limits (CoCom Limits), meant to prevent their use in missiles and such.
While most people won't reach the speed limits, people have reached the height limits when doing "space" photography using weather balloons. They consistently lose their GPS telemetry data at that point.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by RobertLTux · 2012-06-20 05:06 · Score: 2

"That is an administrative nightmare. You are drawing up exceptions to the freedom of another individual. Do you own the image/video of yourself and/or your property?"
actually yes i do which is why any professional gets waivers/arranges payment in these types of cases.
and again your "rights" to watch anything in my backyard end where my ability to defend my backyard ends.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Enigma2175 · 2012-06-20 05:06 · Score: 1

Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth.
Who says that Google (or Apple) is using drones for this? I have seen no source that indicates the photographs are taken from drones, but this thread is full of people talking about drones. Does anyone have a source for these claims? I was under the impression that these pictures were being taken from regular airplanes.

--
Enigma
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Nimey · 2012-06-20 05:07 · Score: 1

The Pentagon and Capitol are big buildings with well-known locations, you know.
I'll assume Poe's Law here and acknowledge the same is true of electrical substations and the like.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by khipu · 2012-06-20 05:24 · Score: 1

actually yes i do which is why any professional gets waivers/arranges payment in these types of cases.
Professionals get waivers in order to be able to use the pictures commercially. You do not need a waiver or permission to take anybody's picture anywhere, except truly private locations (changing rooms, bathrooms).

and again your "rights" to watch anything in my backyard end where my ability to defend my backyard ends.
You indeed have a "right to defend your backyard": with hedges, trees, and fences. Beyond that, you do not have a right to keep others from looking or taking photographs.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Sentrion · 2012-06-20 05:28 · Score: 2

Your local tax board wants a snapshot of your property every few years as well. If a tree falls down and reveals a mountain-top view they can increase the taxable value of your home by another $100k.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Kelbear · 2012-06-20 05:37 · Score: 1

Not everything needs to be dragged out towards logcal absurdity.
I think it's fairly obvious that there is both a need for technological advancement, as well as respect for privacy. New technology is new. Iterative changes can accumulate into something substantially different. With new technology, we have new problems that need to be addressed, and can't be handwaved away by clinging to old solutions that account for the changes that have since taken place.
Let the aerial technology work, but require an opt-out function be made available to the public if a vendor wants to publicize or sell that information. It is a reasonable restriction to protect something important. No it won't be easy to implement, but it's not impossible, and that extra effort is just part of the cost of integrating that technology into our lives without undue disruption.
We don't have to pretend to be idiots that can't handle shades of grey between two extremes. Technology is cool and useful, so let's embrace it without ruining our lives at the same time. Just be reasonable.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Jeng · 2012-06-20 06:16 · Score: 1

The tech that would be required to send C4 laden RC planes via GPS is not cheap, but a video camera is so it s more likely that if someone attempted something like what you said they would do it visually. GPS would just complicate things.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-06-20 06:39 · Score: 1

Doesn't that only apply to export?

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-06-20 06:45 · Score: 1

It's not YOUR airspace. Just ask the FAA.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tibman · 2012-06-20 07:04 · Score: 1

hah, PLGRs! Stupid big gps receivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Lightweight_GPS_Receiver

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by ak3ldama · 2012-06-20 07:28 · Score: 1

These arbitrary lines are going to stop innovation. You won't be able to use it because it can process too much information, when it would probably revolutionize society.
These artibrary lines, like DoNotTrack? It hampers innovation. Directed advertising will revolutionize society!
What happens when google has enough of these flying to actually see you leave your house and know where you go?

--
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tkrotchko · 2012-06-20 07:37 · Score: 1

GPS receivers work well on civilian airliners.
On an old Garmin I took on the plane, it indicated a speed over 500 MPH at 40,000 feet, so I'm not sure how fast you have to be or how high you have to be to disable GPS.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Hatta · 2012-06-20 07:45 · Score: 1

I understand that you would WANT it to be illegal for someone to watch your 5 yr old daughter swimming, but what about the freedom of someone else watching them? Do you draw the line with video cameras? The risk, because private property is everywhere, is that video cameras would then be illegal.
It's already illegal to mount a video camera where it would peer over a privacy fence. Why should a drone mounted video camera be treated any differently?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by mattack2 · 2012-06-20 07:56 · Score: 1

Isn't DoNotTrack completely voluntary? I mean, even on the web server side.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Dahan · 2012-06-20 08:21 · Score: 1

GPS receivers work well on civilian airliners.
On an old Garmin I took on the plane, it indicated a speed over 500 MPH at 40,000 feet, so I'm not sure how fast you have to be or how high you have to be to disable GPS.
You know, there was a link in the comment you responded to that stated the limits. They are above what you'd normally achieve on a commercial/civilian flight.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by gstoddart · 2012-06-20 08:34 · Score: 1

What happens when google has enough of these flying to actually see you leave your house and know where you go?
And, since this is a company and not the government doing this (which would likely be illegal), what happens when the government decides to demand this data?
This would effectively outsource surveillance of everybody with no pesky laws to get in the way. Everybody wins!

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by vlm · 2012-06-20 09:26 · Score: 1

The tech that would be required to send C4 laden RC planes via GPS is not cheap, but a video camera is so it s more likely that if someone attempted something like what you said they would do it visually. GPS would just complicate things.
Even a video camera is too expensive. Cessna 172 with suicide bomber with delusions of grandeur. Much cheaper, you can steal one at any little airfield. My sig line below is not referring to GPS guidance.
Ditto the poor idea above of designing and building a cruise missile to deliver anthrax. We already know the "official" delivery mechanism is the US post office and it only costs a stamp.
There are no terror plots using a GPS that don't read like some Rube Goldberg slash Dr Doofenshmirtz comedy plot.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by vlm · 2012-06-20 09:28 · Score: 1

YES that is it. There was also its cousin the SLGR aka "plugger and slugger". The SLGR is the one I was thinking of. The size of a car radio and it ate something like 8 AA batteries at a time. What a beast. It was pretty tough, G I proof, thats for sure.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by vlm · 2012-06-20 09:32 · Score: 1

Basically a civillian (C/A) receiver must disable itself once its calculated speed and altitude go above certain limits (CoCom Limits [wikipedia.org]), meant to prevent their use in missiles and such.
I remember some civilian GPS had much lower limits put in by the mfgr. They were terrified that someone would pay $100 for a "civilian" unit instead of paying $10000 for an aviation unit so they cut out above 100 knots and wouldn't display above 10km or so ASL.

but the DOD has the ability to selectively re-enable SA on individual satellites
Also they/we have deployed jammers. Before they had decent jammers they were pretty worried.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by DrVomact · 2012-06-20 10:12 · Score: 1

...
Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth. If I have a privacy fence up... well, it's to protect my privacy. Taking pictures from a low flying drone isn't much different than leaning a ladder against the fence and climbing up to peer over....
Ah but think of the new sport that is now going to catch on: drone skeet shooting! Yehaaa!
IMPORTANT SAFETY WARNING from the Drone Skeet Shooting Association of America: Participants should not engage U.S. government drones. A predator missile can seriously mess up your back yard. Remember, identify your target before opening fire. Also, drones are counted in your favor only if the wreckage lands on your property. If it falls on your neighbor's property, he gets the points. Happy drone skeeting!

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by rastos1 · 2012-06-20 23:22 · Score: 1

You can't make a law that says, "When technology is too good, it can't do this or that".
I walked 5 steps behind some woman today in the morning. For about 5 minutes. If I was doing that 24/7 it would be stalking and illegal.
I.e. the level of activity should play a role in deciding of whether the said activity is legal or not.

What's good for the goose... by Revvy · 2012-06-20 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Senator Schumer,

You seem to be arguing that drone usage by private companies violates the privacy and/or security of the American public. Many people agree with that. Additionally, many people agree that drone usage by Law Enforcement Agencies and US Federal Agencies also violates the privacy and/or security of the American public.

I find it hypocritical, then, that you would simultaneously support the use of armed drones in the US by Federal Agencies and Law Enforcement while objecting to unarmed drone use by private enterprise. Perhaps I'm not understanding your position clearly. Perhaps, and I believe this to be more likely, I am.

-----
Your lips are moving.

Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:03 · Score: 1

You're certainly not understanding much at all. There's a very simple example to use, and if you can't understand it, there's no point in trying further:
It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.
Not saying there's no abuse possible, or no excesses in the current system, but aside from a few extremists at the margins, I don't see anybody absolutely and dogmatically opposed to the concept of imprisonment as a way to dealing with criminals.
Just with certain aspects of it. But heck, just because I want to improve people's driving doesn't mean I don't want them driving.
Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:04 · Score: 1

Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe and to fight crime. Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Private business use of drones is not necessary for either of these purposes, and is instead used to grant some convienence that end-users don't actually require, and possibly to support regional advertising. These goals are not worth the violation of privacy.
Does that clear things up?
Re:What's good for the goose... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-06-20 04:09 · Score: 1

It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.
A seriously flawed analogy, given the fact that the drones do little more than the eyes of pedestrians already do, i.e., that they see things. Or do you suggest that opening our eyes in public spaces should be prohibited as well for everyone except law enforcement officials? I predict a sudden increase in traffic accidents.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:What's good for the goose... by Mr+44 · 2012-06-20 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest pro-government control-freak assholes in congress. He has no qualms bending logic, twisting and lying to spin whatever propoganda he needs to in order to advance his agenda. He has never met a law he didn't like, and works to restrict freedom with his every move.
This is only latest in a decades long series of moves by him.
See:
Chuck Schumer vs. Free Speech
Schumer Among Biggest Supporters of Anti-Piracy Laws (He was a co-sponsor of SOPA and PIPA)
Schumer's racket: Lobbyists and hedge funds
Schumer proposes new federal regulations on grill brushes
And since the above links are all pretty recent, here's some Schumer history:

On the eve of the first anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing in April, 1996, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Democrats were very disappointed, however, because the bill passed without proposed expansions of wiretapping authority. In May 1996, Reps. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 3409 "to combat domestic terrorism."
The bill, titled the "Effective Anti-Terrorism Tools for Law Enforcement Act of 1996," would expand the powers granted to the FBI to engage in multi- point (roving) wiretaps and emergency wiretaps without court orders, and to access an individual's hotel and vehicle and storage facility rental records. It also relaxed the requirements for obtaining pen register and trap and trace orders in foreign intelligence investigations.
Re:What's good for the goose... by nedlohs · 2012-06-20 04:32 · Score: 1

How did we keep safe and fight crime before drones existed?
Re:What's good for the goose... by camperdave · 2012-06-20 04:34 · Score: 2

Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Is it? I don't see that as intrinsically true. There are many situations where a violation of privacy would increase crime and put people in danger. In any case, it is a matter for society to decide, not some anonymous individual on a website.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:What's good for the goose... by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-20 04:43 · Score: 1

And should the military be fighting crime in the first place?
Generally yes.
The US has a rather negative history with its military, so it has a series of laws written from a perspective that no longer applies. Lots of other countries are happy to use special forces and paramilitary police units in both capacities, including the UK, Germany, France, etc.
For them, the sorts of problems they faced, including major terrorist activities with a local ish population and decent funding meant that using the police became unreasonable. So they used the army, or their legal system is just different and they have quasi paramilitary units that do policing work. If you view the role of police to be catching thieves and investigating crime then you can legitimately view the role of the military as being to fight enemies of the state, whether they also fall under the realm of criminal or not.
Look at is this way, if Mexico, Spain and leftists in south america had been funding an insurgency and moving insurgents into the southern US you'd have a very different view of the role of law enforcement versus the army than the US currently does. It's not so much that the US is wrong, it's just relatively rare that it has a problem that really warrants the army, though I suppose the entire concept of SWAT teams is redundant with the army. For other countries, who've been dealing with these sorts of problems for hundreds of years (Northern Ireland, Algeria, ETA in spain etc.) they've come up with solutions that involve using the military. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the military is trained for it, and appropriately commanded. You couldn't easily have the US army operate domestically tomorrow anymore than you could ask police in the UK to do the job of the SAS tomorrow.
Re:What's good for the goose... by tqk · 2012-06-20 04:48 · Score: 2

Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
No, they're not. They can be done without violating anyone's privacy, as everyone knows. We've been doing it for a very long time.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:What's good for the goose... by DCFusor · 2012-06-20 04:50 · Score: 2

I wish whoever votes for this asshat would start voting differently. He's completely central-statist and elitist. You left out the anti-gun stuff above BTW.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:What's good for the goose... by pla · 2012-06-20 04:54 · Score: 1

It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.

Great example!

So, for example, if we had one group - ie, the US government - absolutely forbidden from searching and seizing someone's person, house, papers, and effects, without a warrant issued in response to an oath or affirmation of probable cause - That group couldn't just randomly go around flying spy planes over my backyard without a good reason to suspect me of illegal activity. With proper safeguards and oversight, though, we could allow any group not bound by such a restriction, however - ie, Google - to conduct such flyovers.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean to make that point? Huh. Oh well. Please step into the scanner, sir.
Re:What's good for the goose... by nedlohs · 2012-06-20 06:38 · Score: 1

Contradicting the "necessary" claim.
Re:What's good for the goose... by mattack2 · 2012-06-20 08:03 · Score: 1

That group couldn't just randomly go around flying spy planes over my backyard without a good reason to suspect me of illegal activity.

Isn't there already precedent regarding "in plain sight" for the police? E.g. can't go in the trunk to look for drugs on a speeding stop, but if they see drugs in the passenger seat, it's legit for the police to go after it?
While we may not think of planes/drones/helicopters as being invokers of the "in plain sight" rule, Barbra Streisand found out that it did (and that was part of a "government sanctioned and commissioned" project). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
Re:What's good for the goose... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-20 15:59 · Score: 1

The problem with drones is that they make the job far too simple, and are actually recording it. The government should not, I believe, have such a power. I don't believe planes or helicopter should be recording us, either.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:What's good for the goose... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-20 16:01 · Score: 1

Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe and to fight crime. Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.
Do you by chance support the Patriot Act and the TSA? It sounds like you're the type of person that would sacrifice people's rights for a perceived increase in safety, so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:What's good for the goose... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-20 16:03 · Score: 1

But if you want to stop all the criminals and give the government extraordinary powers (and as we've historically seen, that's such a grand idea!), simply allow them to imprison anyone with no due process. That would satisfy your desire for safety, yes? After all, the government is made up of perfect beings who would never abuse citizens!

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

It's all military grade, or better by Overzeetop · 2012-06-20 03:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Nice grandstanding. Have you seen the Planet Earth series? I'd say that's probably better than "military grade" video. Actually, there's a lot of stuff out there better than military grade. Get over it.

Aside from being able to map out things from the comfort of your Abbottabad living room using a single source instead of doing regular old recon (it's not hard, or particularly obvious), there's no change except a perceptual one. He is correct that it is effectively impossible to secure every location. A better plan would be to build in the redundancy that should have been there in the first place. If my power goes out - way out in the country - for a week, it sucks to be me, but the 30,000 of us can manage. If power to the east coast goes out for a week, that's really, really bad. Perhaps you should consider a more robust system that is less prone to single point failures?

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:It's all military grade, or better by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Agreed on how much this will do against terrorism. I'd love to see some more redundancy in our power system as well, but some things are difficult to make redundant, and can wreak havoc beyond the power aspect. What would bringing down the Hoover dam do to the surrounding area? About two dozen shaped charges in a circle, and I'm not sure the dam will be able to hold.
I'm a bit more concerned about the privacy implications. Low-flying drones can spot a lot more in my backyard - or an atrium, if I had one - than the Google car can do from the street. Finally, they might get themselves into legal trouble, as land-owners generally have air rights. I'm just curious what will happen when someone decides to assert it when they get a perfect overhead shot of their property. Or, if they want to get fancy, prove via basic trigonometry that the angled shot had to have been taken from above their property.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:It's all military grade, or better by Alioth · 2012-06-20 04:15 · Score: 1

Landowners have air rights? Citation needed.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:It's all military grade, or better by NeutronCowboy · 2012-06-20 04:24 · Score: 1

Here and here. It'll come down to how low the drones are flying, and whether taking pictures of your backyard constitute some sort of trespassing. I'd be curious to find out if there ever was a case brought against some Ultra-light or single-engine Cessna pilot for invasion of privacy, trespassing or something similar.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:It's all military grade, or better by stiggle · 2012-06-20 04:39 · Score: 1

You have rights to the air above your land as far up as you can occupy or use - depending upon local zoning regulations.
You can also sue anyone who tresspasses in your airspace, so you could probably sue Google with their low flying drone at 200', but not American Airlines at 40,000'
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/airspace-right-lawyers.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460601&id=eBoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2585,35429
Re:It's all military grade, or better by Jeng · 2012-06-20 04:41 · Score: 1

Yes, it has happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#.22Streisand_effect.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:It's all military grade, or better by couchslug · 2012-06-20 05:46 · Score: 1

"Perhaps you should consider a more robust system that is less prone to single point failures?"
The "Death Star" engineering model is flawless. What have we to fear?

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:It's all military grade, or better by HornWumpus · 2012-06-20 06:08 · Score: 1

FAA takes shooting at aircraft very seriously. RC or manned? How sure could you be before you bagged it? Maybe it's twice as high as you think.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:It's all military grade, or better by spire3661 · 2012-06-20 06:51 · Score: 1

You can drive across Hoover Dam. I did it less then 3 months ago.

--
Good-bye
Re:It's all military grade, or better by NatasRevol · 2012-06-20 07:35 · Score: 1

What if you use your airspace for a shooting gallery? Rifle bullets can got 40,000' though probably not vertically.
Seems 15,000' or so in the Denver area.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/37.cfm

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:It's all military grade, or better by Jeng · 2012-06-20 08:29 · Score: 1

You may end up needing to illuminate them if it gets near civilian airspace, so use tracers.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:It's all military grade, or better by kermidge · 2012-06-20 08:34 · Score: 1

Late Seventies, in conversation about the big power outage of '65, several people remarked that all it would take would be a handful of guys with deer rifles driving around knocking out transformers at distribution sub-stations to thoroughly bollix things. They're large, expensive, and most importantly, take a while to make and test. Such spares as may exist are insufficient to fix things speedily. (From personal experience, it can take a day or more just to wind the secondaries for a small 300kVA three-phase rig. That's presuming the plant has power....)
Some years later a friend who designs them for a living said it would work handily. The problem and risk are well-known in the industry but there's not much that can be done about it without major changes.
Re:It's all military grade, or better by NatasRevol · 2012-06-20 08:42 · Score: 1

Or lasers :-)

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

I want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 03:58 · Score: 1

a federal law stating we have a general right of privacy.

Things to be included, but not limited to, would be...
A right to not have detailed arial imagery of one's private real property upon request. (You should be able to sunbath nude without worry that someone will post high-resolution images somewhere.) I say "upon request" because it seems infeasible to have it opt-in these days.
A right to remain anonymous until criminal conviction (the time between arrest and conviction, name and photo should remain private as not to potentially tarnish a person's good name).
A right to medical privacy. (Not sure how this would work, but I'm sure there are issues.)
Etc.

Re:I want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:15 · Score: 1

A right to remain anonymous until criminal conviction (the time between arrest and conviction, name and photo should remain private as not to potentially tarnish a person's good name).
So do you want closed courtrooms: no transparency, thus no faith in the justice system? Or you just want defendants to wear a bag over your head?
Oooohh, let me guess... you just want one more way the government can impose prior restraint on free speech?

better not tell him about OpenStreetMap by Trepidity · 2012-06-20 03:59 · Score: 2

It precisely is building a schematic map of power grids...

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:better not tell him about OpenStreetMap by Bigby · 2012-06-20 05:11 · Score: 1

I worked for a company that managed power lines and has the data of every pole. There was no explicit secretive part to dealing with the data.
However, I do remember when hot weather and then overload eventually caused the blackout in Cleveland, which spread to Detroit, Buffalo, and NYC. The grid is quite fragile.
Re:better not tell him about OpenStreetMap by StinkiePhish · 2012-06-20 05:16 · Score: 1

Most of the general information regarding the location of transmission line infrastructure must be made public in order for the local regulatory authority (e.g. state commissions) to approve or deny projects. Furthermore, the existence of RTO/ISOs push more and more data into the hands of the public in the name of market transparency. Data that otherwise would have been internally confidential in a number of (formerly) vertically integrated entities. I am not arguing that such disclosure is bad, but if the public really cared to know how fragile the grids are to things as simply as a raccoon in the wrong place in a transformer, there would be panic in the streets.
Re:better not tell him about OpenStreetMap by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-20 06:55 · Score: 1

Also don't let him know that you can map out unofficial trails (deer trails mostly) through the woods that could possibly be used by smugglers to get stuff in and out of the US. Not to mention that people can record the locations of gasometers, water towers, gas line markers, water pumps, telephone relay stations, refineries, etc. I probably do spend too much time on OSM mapping out stuff in my town and other areas that I go to.

--
Time to offend someone

Now I know by chemicaldave · 2012-06-20 04:01 · Score: 1

Now I know how Streisand felt.

Re:Now I know by Outta_the_way_peck! · 2012-06-20 05:09 · Score: 1

Along those lines, I would think that warning people when they will be photographing would cause more issues. I imagine a lot of kids going outside to moon the Google drones. Then the government will confiscate all their servers citing child porn and no longer need to even go through the hassle of making requests for data.

Up up in the air by mwfischer · 2012-06-20 04:02 · Score: 1

First off his daughter the comic is kind of hot. ..now actually on topic I would demand that my area be removed from a paper map. What he is trying to say but failed miserably because he's both old and not knowing what he's talking about on a technical level is where is the cut-off line between information and privacy. If I go outside, I can see homes. If I look on a map, not really. If I look on Google Maps, I can see a birds eye view of things.

Also.. wasn't Microsoft Flight Sim to blame for 9/11 training or some junk like that? I mean really?

Re:Up up in the air by camperdave · 2012-06-20 04:40 · Score: 1

If I go outside, I can see homes. If I look on a map, not really.
Depends on the map. Good topo maps will show buildings.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:well... by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-20 04:06 · Score: 3, Informative

You do realize that Chuck Schumer is a Democrat, right? Definitely not a Tea Party guy.

Fail

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Military Grade Bullshit by Grudge2012 · 2012-06-20 04:06 · Score: 1

People have been using aerial photography to make maps for decades. There is absolutely nothing special (nor "military grade") about them.

Re:He's completely right by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-06-20 04:11 · Score: 1

Moreover, I fail to see how exactly is it not impossible to secure every location today. If it is, in fact, impossible even today, the argument that it will impossible tomorrow with the drones seems irrelevant.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Schumer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Schumer doesn't give a rat's behind about privacy. What he cares about is calling attention to himself so that he can go on bullying the private sector from his imperial senate seat

Its not military grade by bored · 2012-06-20 04:13 · Score: 1

If civilian companies have them.

Especially if those companies don't have any military ties.

This is the same reason my GPU isn't a military grade device.

Re:Its not military grade by PPH · 2012-06-20 05:10 · Score: 1

That's a gray area. It used to be that anything useful to the DoD could get listed as 'dual use' technology. Encryption technology was one instance of this policy. Until it became evident that the loss of commercial utility due to development going offshore seriously outweighed the benefits of keeping export restrictions.
Some years ago, the Pentagon could sit down with your engineering/sales staff and negotiate the acquisition of some product to their specifications. If their specification was nothing more than an olive camo paint job, they could still (according to the letter of the law) claim that, since you are now manufacturing to MIL spec, your product could be restricted from export. Merely sitting down in a meeting where other aspects of classified information might have been discussed was sufficient to trigger a restriction.
People have gotten smart lately. When some government procurement people approach, we just escort them to the cash register, where they are free to buy anything on the same terms as the general public. One can also spin off a government part number for something like a toilet seat or hammer. While that part can be export restricted (and sold to the Pentagon for a markup of a few thousand percent), the identical commercial version can usually be kept unencumbered.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Location is not protected by jcronen · 2012-06-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Location is specifically not protected as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII).

This does not mean that location is necessarily public information to be provided by the government, but FERC specifically sought to keep the location of particular bits of infrastructure out of that data which is considered confidential.

If Schumer has a beef, he should bring it up with FERC.

Moron by jimmy_dean · 2012-06-20 04:20 · Score: 1

"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."

Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm

--
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.

Re:Moron by WaffleMonster · 2012-06-20 05:10 · Score: 1

"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."
Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm
Most of it is heavily documented and much of that information is avaliable to the public.
I can go to my counties web site and download prerendered maps and shapefiles detailing our aquifer and locations of every well in the system.
Detailed maps of the national energy grid including capacities of each line is also freely avaliable.
I hate fear mongers, spies and stalkers. Using fear mongering as the basis for attacking spies and stalkers makes me sad.

huh? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-06-20 04:22 · Score: 1

so the kinds of criminals that would know what to do with maps of infrastructure are too lazy or stupid or broke to get that information until google or apple provides it to them. would those maps make it easier for them? sure. just like a vehicle would help them getaway or a cell phone would help them communicate with each other, or a computer would help them plan a crime, or the weather channel would help them choose what day to commit a crime, etc.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

And No "Democrats" Tag? by KermodeBear · 2012-06-20 04:22 · Score: 1, Troll

Whenever someone from the Republican party does something stupid, the article is instantly slapped with a "Republicans" tag. When a Democrat does something stupid... It's just one person being stupid.

--
Love sees no species.

Re:And No "Democrats" Tag? by Nimey · 2012-06-20 04:39 · Score: 1, Informative

That's probably because the entire Republican Party has been trying to outdo itself for years in saying stupid things to attract fringe votes and big donors, and it is organized and disciplined about staying on message.
"Organized" and "disciplined" are /not/ things that one can say about their opposition, so it's really just Chuck Schumer being an ignorant ass.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

FFS by organgtool · 2012-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1

I don't think it's possible to support privacy more than I do. But if you step foot outside of your living space, you have entered a public area. You may be seen by other people, your conversation can be overheard, and people are free to record your image and conversation via photographs, video recordings, or audio recordings. If you do not like this, you are free to refrain from leaving your living space or wear a disguise when you go out.

4inches by I+Read+Good · 2012-06-20 04:28 · Score: 4, Funny

FTA: "...Google and Apple have upgraded their capabilities to aircraft-based photography that can see through windows and capture detailed images with four-inch resolution."

Four-inch resolution? I guess I don't have anything to worry about!

Re:4inches by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-20 07:38 · Score: 1

At least your honest.

--
Time to offend someone

Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 04:30 · Score: 1

You post here all the time!

Scare Away Freedom by hemo_jr · 2012-06-20 04:35 · Score: 1

I am tired of sensationalizing politicians and the government using the fear of terrorism, or even perversion as an excuse to curtail freedom.

"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-20 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

You first, Chucky!

Yet another mealy-mouthed, two-faced, lying, dinosaur of a career politician that should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of being in a position of government power.

A Google drone might spot a greenhouse in my backyard and target horticultural product ads at me. The horror!

A government drone might spot the same greenhouse and target a SWAT raid on me. Or a Hellfire missile.

If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends.

Maybe an open-source drone project for civilians to counter the governments domestic drone spying with their own spy drones? I bet a few civilian drones buzzing over these politician's own homes and offices would get some attention.

And if the government decides to severely restrict civilian drone use while giving free reign to TLA/LEO drones, maybe my experience with designing military missile & torpedo guidance/targeting systems could find civilian counter-applications.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by couchslug · 2012-06-20 05:01 · Score: 5, Informative

"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."
He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx
The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-20 05:33 · Score: 1

"If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends."
He also wants to disarm you since he clearly knows best how to run a society.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/3/schumer-bill-includes-steps-toward-fede.aspx [nraila.org]
The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to embed the capability for revolution in US society, which was founded by revolution. Those who would take your weapons would make you slaves.
Totally agree, and yes, I was aware of that bill Chucky & friends (fiends?) are pushing that you linked to, but thanks. Proud gun owner and NRA lifetime member here.
The more people that know the kind of freedom-destroying POS that Schumer is, the better. That's a large part of the reason for my posting that he should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of holding a position of power.
Death to tyrants. Sic semper tyrannis.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 06:07 · Score: 1

He wants to disarm you, while he is licensed to carry a gun (and also has armed escorts).
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
Check out the photo of the hypocritical piece of shit grinning like a schoolboy while firing a submachine gun.
Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-20 15:14 · Score: 1

He [Schumer] isn't above the constitution.
Schumer and all his Progressive pals in both parties think that they are above/beyond the limits set by the Constitution on their power.
That's the whole concept of Progressivism. That the Constitution is old, outdated, unnecessary, too hard to amend, and a hindrance to government doing what it wants.
When they talk about "fundamental change" that's what they mean. A government no longer limited by the Constitution.
Not on MY watch!
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:It's okay for the government to spy.. by Lisias · 2012-06-20 04:47 · Score: 2

Government has powers to put anyone in jail.

Private companies can not hold their employees against their will.

This is hypocrisy too?

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org

Pot calling the Kettle Black by vingilot · 2012-06-20 04:50 · Score: 1

I would say the same thing to Chuck:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/drones-at-home-raise-1460393.html

Ban paper plat maps! Think of the children! by couchslug · 2012-06-20 04:55 · Score: 2

Clearly we need to ban the printing of publicly available plat maps (hint, they predate computers by at least a century!),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plat

shut down GIS websites, and remove all info on everything from the Terrorist Intarwebs!

Plat maps show pipelines, power company and utility easements, and are absolutely fundamental to real estate transactions. Fuck, let's ban realtors too. The keep compromising "MLS listing books" the CommieIslamoNazis could use to kill our freedom.

Next time you see so-called "gun control" legislation pimped by Schumer, you'll have an insight into how his mind works!

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:He's completely right by Cosgrach · 2012-06-20 05:03 · Score: 1

I agree. Not only to the point of it being stupid to try, but it is 'Bend over and fuck me in the ass stupid' - which is exactly why they will try.

--
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?

Re:He's completely right by gl4ss · 2012-06-20 05:11 · Score: 2

well, it's only impossible to secure every location for every conceivable threat.

of course the only logical answer is to design the infrastructure so that you can't just blow up one booth and have the whole east coast go into a cascading failure.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Remember the Grad Student Who Got Blasted by joelsherrill · 2012-06-20 05:23 · Score: 1

Shades of Sean Gorman Batman! Anyone remember the uproar over his dissertation on critical infrastructure based on analysis of publicly available information. Almost 10 years ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/buzz/us-critical-infrastructure/3633190

Pictometry? by oneiros27 · 2012-06-20 05:26 · Score: 1

This stuff's been out for years, but it just wasn't freely available to the public -- you had to pay someone to get access to it. (oh ... and those groups sold to governments ... I know my county has access to pictometry.com ... I have no idea what all they use it for, but their website has suggestions)

Now that Google et.al. want to make it freely available, so the general public can use it, it's finally getting attention?

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

Re:Pictometry? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-20 07:54 · Score: 1

The imagery is beneficial but the .shp files are of much more use and various localities give them away for free. For the twin cities area in Minnesota there is Metro GIS and for the whole state there is the DNR Data Deli and the MN DOT GIS sites. Not to mention the various stuff available from the fed the like TIGER or any of the stuff from the USGS, not to mention the National Atlas, National Map, or any number of other sources of info available.

--
Time to offend someone

Welcome to reality by yacc143 · 2012-06-20 05:45 · Score: 1

No democracy that is not a police state can protect every and each piece of public infrastructure.

Guess the Senator has less problems with the US becoming police state.

Bolt cutters, pipe wrenches, and motivation... by couchslug · 2012-06-20 05:53 · Score: 1

...are a threat to infrastructure too. As partisans prove (inexpensively, lest we forget) before the internet, someone who wants to fuck shit up and is willing to die trying can do considerable damage.

The way to sustain damage and keep fighting is to have enough redundant systems so you can take a hit or many. Trying to secure ALL your systems from ALL attacks is impractical and weakening.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

CBUFT by garbut · 2012-06-20 05:54 · Score: 1

Let's get rid of everything that Could Be Used For Terrorism... roads, telephones, power tools, cars, water... Fear it all!

--
Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?

We will if you will by chriswaco · 2012-06-20 06:08 · Score: 1

Google and Apple should respond with "We will if you will."

WOULD BE impossible? by nuckfuts · 2012-06-20 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location.

It IS impossible to secure every location. Will American policy makers ever address the problem of WHY people want to attack the US? Will the US ever adopt a proactive approach to defense?

I'm fortunate to live in a country with virtually identical amenities and standard of living compared to the US, yet we don't inspire even a fraction of the fanatical hatred aimed at the US. Why is it, Americans, that people on the other side of the globe, who do not speak your language and have never been to your country, detest you with such fervour they would kill themselves to inflict harm on you?

I'm not justifying their position; I'm just saying it's a question that bears asking.

Re:WOULD BE impossible? by couchslug · 2012-06-20 22:48 · Score: 1

"Why is it, Americans, that people on the other side of the globe, who do not speak your language and have never been to your country, detest you with such fervour they would kill themselves to inflict harm on you?"
Because they objected to the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. It was specifically a religious objection and they so stated.
You shouldn't be wondering. Al Qaeda did everything they could to communicate their message. They attacked the Saudi government.
There isn't the slightest doubt as to the specifics of their motivation because they were unequivocal about their reasons for fighting!

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Only Government! by lilfields · 2012-06-20 07:01 · Score: 1

Only Government can spy on citizens, hold you without trial, and bomb your house if they suspect you as a terrorist...or knock down your door and shoot your dogs for minor offenses. Didn't you know that? Chuck Schumer cares about your privacy and rights, unless he's violating them in which case it's the "proper role" of government.

Wait, what? was: Re:fear everything! by rthille · 2012-06-20 07:14 · Score: 1

human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked.

Wait, what? Rights are from social acceptance or convention, but aren't contingent? WTF? As for "natural law", the only "rights" natural law gives are physics. So what rights are you talking about that aren't contingent? The right to have mass?

All "rights" are established thru force, usually by a minority, but with the acquiescence of the majority. All rights (other than physical laws) are negotiable and contingent.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

Curb your spy planes by operagost · 2012-06-20 07:17 · Score: 1

The federal government doesn't want any competition.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Fuck NY Politicians by zoloto · 2012-06-20 07:37 · Score: 1

They're all fucking clownshoes. Mouthbreathing idiots.

Re:well... by rwven · 2012-06-20 07:44 · Score: 1

Schumer is about as far from a tea party member as you can get...

Re:well... by Grudge2012 · 2012-06-20 08:53 · Score: 1

Schumer is about as far from a tea party member as you can get...

His paranoid ramblings would fit right in.

I feel very secure... by Arancaytar · 2012-06-20 09:26 · Score: 1

[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States.

...knowing that the only thing standing between us and a crippling attack on infrastructure is that terrorists don't have maps.

Re:Wait, what? was: Re:fear everything! by iluvcapra · 2012-06-20 10:13 · Score: 1

You can sorta argue all kinds of different "motivations" for rights, I don't believe in most natural rights interpretation but a lot of people do. The OR is an exclusive OR here.

The thing that makes something a "right" is that, in the general case, it requires more force to prevent its exercise than the reward someone gets from preventing it, be that someone a government, or a corporation, or anyone else. You can't force people to stop talking, and the more successful you are, the more it has to rely on violence instead of authority or common cause and the less powerful the government becomes (I use Arendt's definitions of these terms).

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Every law is a death threat by Pfhorrest · 2012-06-20 11:21 · Score: 1

When was the last time the United States government "put a gun to people's heads" to work an economic policy? A policy of any kind? Even if they throw you in jail they're not going to point a gun at you.

They will if that's what it takes to get you into the jail.

Every single law on the books comes down to "do this, or we will use whatever force necessary to make you wish you had when we asked nicely".

Break a law that only carries the punishment of a fine? Oh, that's not violent at all. Except if you don't pay that fine, then (possibly after additional fines first) you get a warrant out for your arrest. Some men with guns show up at your door and ask you to come sit in a concrete room for a while. If you don't, they will eventually try to physically drag you there, and if you manage to circumvent that, they will eventually pull out the mace, taser, or gun as necessary. If, on the very slim chance you manage to circumvent those measures, even more deadly force will be brought out until eventually you are either in that concrete room or dead.

It doesn't matter if the original crime was jaywalking. You do what they say (and you get a choice of options: don't jaywalk, or pay a fine now, or pay a bigger fine later, or hang out in a concrete room for a while now, or a longer while later, etc), or they will fucking kill you.

This is why it is very important to consider very carefully every time we want to make anything illegal: in the end, every law boils down to a threat of deadly force, and we have to ask what is really worth threatening someone's life over?

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

Re:Every law is a death threat by iluvcapra · 2012-06-20 12:22 · Score: 1

Is the fear of getting shot by the police what keeps you from jaywalking? Is it what makes you pay your taxes? Is it what makes you buy health insurance?
The fact is, the US government cannot and does not credibly threaten violence to compel these behaviors -- it simply doesn't have enough guns, no strong nation-state on Earth has the facilities necessary to violently compel more than the most simple behavior, and the more they resort to the guns, the more disordered and disunited their government is. People obey the law out of the expectation that it's a norm, or that someone will catch them (government or civilian), or they tell themselves it's fair, or in their enlightened self-interest: there are many ready-made and self-inventable rationales for playing by the rules, and most of them don't involve the fear of death.
If fear of violence was the thing compelling obedience in the US, the entire country would collapse, people wouldn't stand for it. The difference between you and me is that I believe this, and you don't. You seem to find it convenient that people are sheep in a slaughterhouse, too stupid to understand the powers around them and cowering in fear lest they stray off some line.
Unfortunately, Weber's postulated idea has been been converted by reinterpretation into am intellectually-bankrupt high school level theory of government, which was then mixed with libertarian theory at some point, and the adherents use it as a kind of salve to help rationalize why individuals don't behave according to their individualistic theoretical model. "They're afraid of getting shot! That's why people don't jaywalk! That's why they pay their taxes! That's why they do anything that's in conflict with (my standard of) rational self-interest and (my standard of) free thought!"

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:Every law is a death threat by Pfhorrest · 2012-06-20 14:02 · Score: 1

There's a difference between what motivates someone to act and what makes that act legally compulsory. People do all kinds of things they don't legally have to, and refrain from things they legally could do, for all kinds of reasons, all the time.
What makes "illegal" different from something like "impolite" is that nobody is going to physically harm you for using the wrong fork on your salad, or mentioning how unflattering their clothes look; at least, we don't as a society condone such violence on the odd occasions that it might occur. But if you have the gall to drive 5mph faster than a posted sign on an empty highway, and don't even fork over hundreds of dollars to make up for that heinous crime, and don't voluntarily take a vacation in jail to make up for that lack of payment, and have the gall to run away or (heaven forbid) fight back when some men in uniform try to kidnap you and drag you there against your will, well then, you deserve to get shot, eh?
I'm not saying that the only reason people do things the law says to do is because they will get shot if they don't. I'm saying that what makes those things illegal, instead of just good ideas, or polite, or whatever, is that we as a society have officially condoned the use of whatever force is necessary to make them happen. Contrast the above paragraph with, say, a fine at a fancy restaurant for using the wrong fork. You don't pay the fine, and what recourse do they have? They could eject you from the restaurant, but they could always do that anyway for no reason. It's ridiculous to even call that a fine, because there is no (socially condoned) way of coercively collecting on it. They can ask you for money, sure, but you can always just say "no". They can't lock you up in their basement as punishment for failure to pay; they can ask you to come down there, but you can say "no" to that too. They can't drag you down there against your will, and if they did, and if you ran away or fought back, everyone would recognize that they were in the wrong and you were in the right. Not so with a fine from the state; if you don't pay the fine, that warrants stronger action, and if you don't comply with that, that warrants stronger action, and so on escalating as far as necessary.
I'm not saying that the state could carry out such escalation against every violation. In fact I use this as an argument that every state is on some deep level inherently democratic; any group of people in power, even a supposedly absolute monarch, only has the power they have because enough people support them and few enough people resist them. If ever enough people stand up and say "hell no", good luck carrying out punishment against all of them together at once. As you say, any country facing that situation would collapse; that would, almost by definition, be the collapse of the Weberian state, when its monopoly on the use of force is no longer considered legitimate by its people.
I will also be the first to agree that people not only don't, but especially shouldn't, base their actions entirely on what is or isn't legal, precisely because threats are not the best of reasons for action. I am what is called a philosophical anarchist, which means that I don't necessarily advocate the demolition of any particular state or government, but that I consider their decrees non-compulsory; the state saying to do something no more obligates me to do it than you saying to do it. I may be obligated to do it anyway, for other reasons, in which case the state has told me to do something which is legitimately obligatory, but that is because the state correctly asserted what was obligatory, not because whatever the state decrees becomes obligatory. The only difference between the state telling me to do something and you telling me to do something is that you can't ruin my life and get away with it if I disobey. The state can.
Note that this doesn't mean I want no government, and no punishment for anything. It means that I think we should only condone such escalation o

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Every law is a death threat by readin · 2012-06-21 08:26 · Score: 1

Great post!

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.

North Korea Uncovered by peterburkimsher · 2012-06-20 12:23 · Score: 1

With high-resolution imagery? A group of college students already mapped North Korea's infrastructure using only existing satellite photos. http://www.nkeconwatch.com/north-korea-uncovered-google-earth/

Nope, just weird by ttimes · 2012-06-20 12:57 · Score: 1

I have a concern about this, but can't address it because of the hypocrisy: Odd to have the government so deeply concerned about invasion of privacy when they have implimented numerous policies that greatly curtail it. Now if Chuck were interested in pointing fingers at both groups, we might have something...

Still awaiting the Senator's response... by AcesDnied · 2012-06-20 17:07 · Score: 1

So I sent a letter 2 nights ago to chuck, fox news, and a few others asking about these messed up contradictions. I have yet to receive a response... I simply asked how this works: Fox news (boo, ya, whatever), says you're raising the red flag on Google and Apple over more detailed maps, but here, http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/30/announces-plans-to-arm-domestic-surveillance-drones-missiles-139411/ you're advocating for 6 drone bases instead of the original 4, all because you hoped one of the bases would be in your own state. So are you trying to create jobs, and look good to your constituents, all in the name of spying on Americans, and then telling the nation that you're tough on privacy issues?

Re:well... by rwven · 2012-06-22 07:36 · Score: 1

Maybe the dems should form a coffee party...

Slashdot Mirror

Chuck Schumer Tells Apple and Google To "Curb Your Spy Planes"

193 of 302 comments (clear)