Slashdot Mirror


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

mk1004 writes with news from The Register that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York has written to Apple and Google regarding their use of 'military-grade spy planes.' The Senator claims concerns ranging from voyeurism to terrorism. Suggested protections: Warn when areas are going to be imaged, give property owners the right to opt out, and blurring of individuals. Schumer seems happy enough, though, with the more detailed versions of such surveillance being in the hands of law enforcement agencies, and phrases his complaint to emphasize what he perceives as risks to infrastructure brought about by detailed maps that anyone can browse: "[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."

62 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. It is no coincidence by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:It is no coincidence by durrr · · 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.

    2. Re:It is no coincidence by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

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

  2. Whats Up Chuck? by RapidEye · · 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."
    1. Re:Whats Up Chuck? by Nimey · · 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
    2. Re:Whats Up Chuck? by kieran · · Score: 2

      I dunno exactly, but it's bigger than 4 inches.

    3. Re:Whats Up Chuck? by datavirtue · · 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
    4. Re:Whats Up Chuck? by datavirtue · · Score: 2

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

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Whats Up Chuck? by rwven · · Score: 2

      Obviously his desire to remain private is admission of guilt. TSA rules, anyway.

  3. Security by obscurity? by mschiller · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:Security by obscurity? by Zerth · · 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.

    2. Re:Security by obscurity? by ff1324 · · 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...

    3. Re:Security by obscurity? by networkBoy · · 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
    4. Re:Security by obscurity? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      Your campus (I'm assuming College/University) is worried that terrorirsts are going to physically attack their networking gear?!?

  4. fear everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:fear everything! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah.. give corporations the same rights as governments. That always works out for the best.

    2. Re:fear everything! by Jeng · · 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.
    3. Re:fear everything! by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      Clearly somebody has clearly not been watching Continuum.

    4. Re:fear everything! by iluvcapra · · 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.
    5. Re:fear everything! by GungaDan · · Score: 3, Funny

      *Areola photography.

      FTFY.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    6. Re:fear everything! by khipu · · Score: 2

      Give corporations the same rights as any other group of people, no more and no less.

    7. Re:fear everything! by readin · · 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.
    8. Re:fear everything! by Sentrion · · 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.

    9. Re:fear everything! by Stele · · Score: 2

      Yeah yeah but where is the areola photography?

    10. Re:fear everything! by Jeng · · 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.
    11. Re:fear everything! by Sentrion · · 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.

    12. Re:fear everything! by clarkkent09 · · 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.
    13. Re:fear everything! by Jeng · · 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.
    14. Re:fear everything! by operagost · · 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.
    15. Re:fear everything! by clarkkent09 · · 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.
    16. Re:fear everything! by Paracelcus · · 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
  5. Same was said with a lot of tech by MozeeToby · · 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...

    1. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by SJHillman · · 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.

    2. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Gription · · 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.

    3. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by vlm · · 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
    4. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · · 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.

    5. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by oobayly · · 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.

    6. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · · 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".

    7. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Jeng · · 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.
    8. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tqk · · 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.
    9. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by RobertLTux · · 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
    10. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by malakai · · 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.

    11. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Bigby · · 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.

    12. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by tlhIngan · · 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.

    13. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by RobertLTux · · 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
    14. Re:Same was said with a lot of tech by Sentrion · · 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.

  6. What's good for the goose... by Revvy · · 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.

    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by Mr+44 · · 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.

    2. Re:What's good for the goose... by camperdave · · 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!
    3. Re:What's good for the goose... by tqk · · 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.
    4. Re:What's good for the goose... by DCFusor · · 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!
  7. It's all military grade, or better by Overzeetop · · 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?
  8. better not tell him about OpenStreetMap by Trepidity · · Score: 2
  9. Re:well... by Sparticus789 · · 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
  10. Schumer by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  11. 4inches by I+Read+Good · · 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!

  12. "Curb You're Drones" Eh? by BlueStrat · · 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.
    1. Re:"Curb You're Drones" Eh? by couchslug · · 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."
  13. Re:It's okay for the government to spy.. by Lisias · · 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
  14. Ban paper plat maps! Think of the children! by couchslug · · 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."
  15. Re:He's completely right by gl4ss · · 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.
  16. WOULD BE impossible? by nuckfuts · · 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.