FBI Admits To Domestic Surveillance Drone Use

An anonymous reader writes "At a hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI director Robert Mueller confirmed the agency is using unmanned drones for surveillance within the U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley asked, 'Does the FBI own or currently use drones and for what purpose?' Mueller replied, 'Yes, for surveillance.' Grassley then asked, 'Does the FBI use drones for surveillance on U.S. soil?' Mueller said, 'Yes, in a very, very minimal way, and seldom.' With regard to restricting the use of drones to protect citizens' privacy, Mueller said, 'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.' According to article, 'Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.'"

Comments

FBI also admits . . .

[sgt_doom]

....they have been unable to locate his body with all those drones they've been using.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-19/drones-are-used-domestic-surveillance-fbi-director-admits

Re:FBI also admits . . .

[sgt_doom]

I mean Jimmy Hoffa's body, as they once again called off another of their infamous digs!

Re:FBI also admits . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Citing ZeroHedge doesn't help your case any.

Re:FBI also admits . . .

[ackthpt]

I mean Jimmy Hoffa's body, as they once again called off another of their infamous digs!

They dug in the wrong spot, he's really burie

s zxio

[NO CARRIER]

Re:FBI also admits . . .

[XxtraLarGe]

They dug in the wrong spot, he's really burie

Haven't you heard? Nobody cares where Jimmy Hoffa is buried anymore.

Re:FBI also admits . . .

[kilfarsnar]

Should we cite Anonymous Cowards instead?

Why not?

[OptimalCynic]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Re:Why not?

[Applekid]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Because we all would like to think "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and not a human certainty.

Re:Why not?

[OptimalCynic]

Yes, but where does the slippery slope lead to? It's an airborne camera - either you allow them or you don't.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "drone" is a big scary word.

Re:Why not?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Presumably because it's a markedly cheaper, easier, and quieter method of doing the same thing: Given the.. er... 'robust' state of law enforcement oversight, your major protection from any given investigative method is that it's a pain in the ass and/or expensive, and you aren't worth the effort. Reduce the effort, and you increase the number of people who are worth the effort.

Re:Why not?

[ganjadude]

let me put on my tin foil hat for a second here

what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

let me take off the tin foil here. now this is clearly pushing it but if we say that drones are ok then it is possible - nay probable that they will work on something along the lines of my tinhattary.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the reason reason that using cameras to record people's license plates is different from sitting on the curb and writing them down yourself. I'll let you use your brain to figure out the differences.

Re:Why not?

[kannibal_klown]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

I kind of agree on this.

I'm not saying I'm all for high-surveillance and I DO acknowledge things are just getting Orwellian every day.

But that ship has sailed. We're already caught on dozens / hundreds of camera just on our way to work every day: bank, traffic, speeding, surveillance, helicopter, etc.

So now they want to put more up there... I'm not really against that. So long as they stay "up there" and aren't hovering outside my 2nd-floor window to see what I'm up to in the privacy of my own home. But watching the areas outside? Fine. Heck if they want to see a beached whale sunbathing on a balcony they can pass over my house while I give them the-bird. But for them to see the public spaces, easily get decent high-res bird's-eye views of critical events / crimes / etc? Meh

Again, that's probably not a popular opinion on slashdot and I'll get modded down. And I realize the old saying about security and freedom... I'm just saying it's just yet-another-camera out there, and cheaper and quicker-to-deploy than a helicopter. Except the keyword "Drone" makes it scary.

NOW... if they arm the flippin' things (even with non-lethal ordinance) or they say it's cool for them to check out the inside of buildings' windows then it's alllllll over.

Re:Why not?

[tiberus]

That's sorta like saying sending a woodpecker or a Hind to pester someone is just another method of doing the same thing. It's rather easy to detect a helicopter, their big, kinda noisy and have to stay several hundred or more feet off the ground. It's a lot harder to detect a Predator, or one of the even smaller drones and I've never seen a helicopter that can fly into my backyard.

Re:Why not?

[SJHiIlman]

But that ship has sailed.

The situation is already bad, so why not just make it worse?

Re:Why not?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

If 'drone' is such a big scary word, then why are meetings over represented with both marketing drones and management drones?

Re:Why not?

[cfulton]

Why shouldn't we put cameras on every street corner? Then we could catch all the Jaywalkers. Why shouldn't we put a microphone in every confessional? Why shouldn't we put cameras in every room in every home. We would end domestic violence once and for all!!

We have to put hard limits on the massive interference with citizens private affairs and lives in place now. The we have already started down the slippery slope. Those in power only need to trot out the TERRORIST boogeyman and the SAFETY boogeyman to get the public to allow seemingly any intrusion into their lives. If we don't start fighting back now we will find that we cannot stop them when they start wiring up out homes in the name of stopping domestic violence or whatever boogeyman they use.

Re:Why not?

[GameboyRMH]

Ah the old "effective loss of privacy due to advances in technology and lower costs is acceptable" mindset...

I've tried the "old way analogy" on this and it hasn't worked so far. Police cars following every car, and a police lookout nest on every lamppost are analogous situations that have been deemed acceptable before by those who hold this mindset. I don't supposed police helicopters swarming all over the place all the time would bother you either?

Re:Why not?

[Baby Duck]

If it's legal to do the latter, you can't make it illegal to do the former, just because it has more throughput. Heaven forbid government would want to actually do something efficiently and accurately for a change. We'd have to come up with new anti-government jokes!

Re:Why not?

[Synerg1y]

It's a well known fact that crime is a sign of society's shortfalls. Most people commit crime for a reason, few do it for the thrill (there's some). Now, building drones costs money, wouldn't that money be better spent fixing society's ills. There is no need for the government to watch us. They need to work on making us as great a society as possible and fixing problems (seems we need to watch them though.. drones all around the whitehouse!). These drone would just focus more on catching criminals then fixing whatever drove the person to commit the crime. Everybody should be able to see how this drones to catch criminals approach can quickly spiral out of control.

Also, LEO's aren't your friend, they'll do anything to get a conviction and advance their career, some are good, but most don't have a working sense of justice. Even google is more of a friend to you.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's legal to do the latter, you can't make it illegal to do the former

What are you smoking? The government is supposed to answer to We The People, so of course we can.

It makes a big difference whether it's automated or not.

Re:Why not?

[Em Adespoton]

Yes, but where does the slippery slope lead to? It's an airborne camera - either you allow them or you don't.

It's an airborne wide-spectrum camera, sometimes with parabolic and laser microphones.

People don't tend to have an issue with the helicopters because they're big, noisy, expensive, and take a number of people to operate. Thus, you're only going to deploy them when it's really necessary, and everyone in the area knows it's deployed. Compare that to drones, where you don't know how many there are, where they are, how much information they're gathering, who they're gathering it for, etc.

We haven't even got to the questions yet of the legality of knocking a drone out of the air -- we know the rules for helicopters.

Basically, there's a lot of "undefined" areas surrounding how drones integrate with our current society, and as such, there are a lot of potentials for abuse based on those gaps.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a problem with any specific technology, be it helicopters, drones, or internet snooping, it's how surveillance is carried out and how it is targeted. We must demand that surveillance of any kind is only conducted on targeted individuals in response to a search warrant and not used as a dragnet to catch anyone commenting any crime.

Re:Why not?

[Artifakt]

The first drones used in military situations were unarmed. Drone use in actual combat dates back at least to WW2, but they were confined to serving as targets training or photo-recon uses. In the 1980s, Iran deployed an armed drone (fitted with 6 RPG-7 grenades for payload). While technically functional, the Iranian design did not see much use and may not have been very effective in the eyes of field commanders. Eventually, the US started deploying armed designs, most probably beginning with the Predator in the 1990s. (The US has had separate drone programs under the Military and CIA control for close to fifty years, and all public claims about the primacy of the Predator program must simply assume there is nothing still in many, many, relevant classified documents which contradicts them).

That's the big twofold greasy slope:
1 - if you allow unarmed drones for police or other civilian organizations, does that mean they will eventually want to deploy armed ones?
2 - if civil deployment is abetted and probably even managed by prior experts from the military and CIA, will they act under a veil of secrecy imported from those same sources?

Re:Why not?

[ArhcAngel]

Perhaps because the helicopters are manned and the drones aren't. Sure you can argue someone is piloting the drone but your accuser still wasn't present when you did whatever it was you are accused of doing was did.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read my words: AU-TO-MA-TI-ON!
*Covert* automation!

In other words:
1. Doing it on a *massive* scale.
2. With the victims barely noticing it.
3. With *zero* useful results.

The purpose of the whole thing is not to improve safety, but to *worsen* it. By constantly harassing people by staring at their every move, and so taking their freedom and creating an insane risk of being "Gitmo'd", in terms of "If you give me six minutes of video of the most honest man, I will find something to Gitmo him."
Any yes, that includes helicopters whose purpose is surveillance. Saying they already do it never has been a valid argument, now has it?

It's as if you never even remotely understood the concept of a computer. Then again, you apparently are a proud "Twitter" user. So that settles it. :P
You got no competence to speak on the subject. And hence you open your mouth more loudly.

Re:Why not?

[vux984]

If it's legal to do the latter, you can't make it illegal to do the former, just because it has more throughput.

You can and should. The balance of police surveillance is maintained in part by the expense and inefficiency of conducting it.

If the efficiency of an aspect of law enforcement is greatly improved, that will shift the balance.

And it is right and appropriate to restore the balance. Not necessarily by prohibiting the new technology, but by imposing stricter limits on when it is used, or by shrinking the surveillance budget so that they can conduct the same level of surveillance they could before, but a fraction of the cost. Or shift the surveillance budget to putting more cops walking the beat.

Society doesn't necessarily want "more surveillance". And just because the cost has come down isn't a valid reason to increase it. That surveillance has become more efficient is great... now lets do the same level surveillance we did before, and use the money freed up for something else. Lowering taxes. More beat cops. Dusting for fingerprints at break ins. Improving response times for emergencies. There all kinds of things the police are perpetually saying they don't have enough money for... if they can replace 5 helicopters with 5 drones and free up a bunch of money for something ELSE do that. But replacing 5 helicopters with 50 drones is just silly.

Re:Why not?

[delcielo]

We've seen where even helicopters can be abused, using thermal imagery, etc. to see into places where they really have no business seeing. Drones are quickly evolving and will exacerbate such problems. We've seen how the warrant process is bypassed or ignored, now imagine drones small enough to see every space you occupy, and autonomous enough that nobody is even providing oversight into what they're recording or observing until after the fact.

Helicopters require effort and cost, and so there is some incentive for their operators to dispatch them only when there is a good cause. Small cheap drones won't have even that barrier.

Re:Why not?

[Applekid]

It's a well known fact that crime is a sign of society's shortfalls. Most people commit crime for a reason, few do it for the thrill (there's some). Now, building drones costs money, wouldn't that money be better spent fixing society's ills. There is no need for the government to watch us. They need to work on making us as great a society as possible and fixing problems (seems we need to watch them though.. drones all around the whitehouse!). These drone would just focus more on catching criminals then fixing whatever drove the person to commit the crime. Everybody should be able to see how this drones to catch criminals approach can quickly spiral out of control.

Also, LEO's aren't your friend, they'll do anything to get a conviction and advance their career, some are good, but most don't have a working sense of justice. Even google is more of a friend to you.

The goal of the powerful is not to stop crime altogether, it's to stop crime from exceeding certain rates that will interfere with the continual farming of the citizenry. The crime that remains is there to scare them away from voting you out.

In short, it's a balance between making sure just enough people get murdered for us to say "hey, there are murderers out there, pay me more taxes!" but not so many that the GDP starts going down.

Re:Why not?

[Bugler412]

Air traffic safety rules is one obvious example of "why"

Re:Why not?

[hawguy]

Yes, but where does the slippery slope lead to? It's an airborne camera - either you allow them or you don't.

It's an airborne wide-spectrum camera, sometimes with parabolic and laser microphones.

People don't tend to have an issue with the helicopters because they're big, noisy, expensive, and take a number of people to operate. Thus, you're only going to deploy them when it's really necessary, and everyone in the area knows it's deployed. Compare that to drones, where you don't know how many there are, where they are, how much information they're gathering, who they're gathering it for, etc.

We haven't even got to the questions yet of the legality of knocking a drone out of the air -- we know the rules for helicopters.

Basically, there's a lot of "undefined" areas surrounding how drones integrate with our current society, and as such, there are a lot of potentials for abuse based on those gaps.

Exactly -- it's the same argument against warrantless tracking of cell phones. Some would say "Well tracking your cell phone is no different than sending a team of agents out to track you all day", which is true if you ignore the cost and inconvenience of sending teams of agents to track millions of people. It's the same thing with drones - the government is going to very judiciously use a 5 million dollar helicopter to spy on someone, and we'd all notice if they were sending thousands of them to track thousands of people. But when they can use a $50,000 (or $5000 or $500) drone, then the barrier to entry is much lower, so they may track many more people with much less justification.

And it becomes easier to target people based on politics or other non-criminal reasons. It'd be hard for the mayor to call up the chief of police and say "Hey, I'm going to face some real competition in the next election, can you have one of your boys track my opponent and see if you can dig up some dirt", there's a lot of people and paperwork involved in allocating a week of helicopter time. But when the city has several dozen drone units and surveillance is common place, then the chief can call his buddy in the drone unit and say "Hey, I'll give you a case of beer if you can watch this guy for a week".

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Begs the question, why should they use helicopters, doesn't it?

Re:Why not?

[daniel.garcia.romero]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Because, as a citizen in this brave new world (therefore, as everyone else, an enemy of the state), I can't use my drones against them. The objetive of using drones (read spying with drones) is to know who I am, where I am, what I am doing and why I am doing it. They justify it with this: If you have not done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. If you think superficially, you may find nothing wrong with that, since they say: to have 'security' you must sacrifice some liberty. But if you think carefully you will see the trojan horse that is this new surveillance state they are 'selling' to us:

Who says what is wrong? I'm sure it's the same people 'selling' the surveillance state to us.

And what is wrong? You may ask yourself: Is terrorism wrong? Is robbery wrong? Is rape wrong? Sure bet! But... is pointing at corruption wrong? Is disagreeing with the state wrong? Is reporting white collar crime wrong? Good luck for you if they think these things are wrong (surprise surprise, they already think it's worse than wrong, it's treason!).

And yet you still may think: well, at least I have my security! That's until the day you need security and realize they are too busy chasing the proper 'wrong doers' to help you.

Re:Why not?

[i kan reed]

Presumably because it's a markedly cheaper, easier, and quieter method of doing the same thing: Given the.. er... 'robust' state of law enforcement oversight, your major protection from any given investigative method is that it's a pain in the ass and/or expensive, and you aren't worth the effort. Reduce the effort, and you increase the number of people who are worth the effort.

Oh no, our government is saving time and money! Stop them! I get your complaint, but that is literally what technology is for.

Re:Why not?

[Yakasha]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Because we all would like to think "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and not a human certainty.

Slipper slopes apply to policy, not technology.

It doesn't matter if they revive the psychic studies and develop clairvoyant super spies as long as they get a warrant before peeking at US citizens.

Re:Why not?

[tsotha]

People don't tend to have an issue with the helicopters because they're big, noisy, expensive, and take a number of people to operate.

Drones aren't much cheaper. Sometimes they're even more expensive, depending on the sensors involved. Drones have more persistence, which is useful for surveilance, but so far there's not a big cost advantage.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The objection isn't to saving time and money. The objection is that rather than doing X amount of surveillance at a tenth of its former price, they'll tend towards doing X*10 amount of surveillance at the same price.

Re:Why not?

[nabsltd]

what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

It's real simple regardless of the technology. If they have a warrant issued by a real judge for that one specific purpose (which means probable cause for a specific crime), even long-term surveillance that violates privacy is OK. You may not like this, but that's the way it has been for many decades.

On the other hand, no warrant, no privacy-violating surveillance. They can still watch/listen to you when you are in public, but they can't legally listen to your phone calls, listen to conversations inside your house that are not loud enough to be heard without augmentation, etc. What this means is that they can't fly a drone over your house in the middle of your 40 acres of land to watch or listen to you unless they have a warrant. I'd even argue that a drone looking into your fenced backyard that can't otherwise be seen from public property would require a warrant.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's just like, your opinion, man...

Re:Why not?

[jxander]

Size : Helicopters (or any other manned aircraft) are big... at least big enough for a person to sit in, plus room for things like engines and cameras and whatnot. Gives any random citizen a good chance of seeing the thing, and knowing that he/she is being helicopter surveilled.

Scope : You've gotta have at least one pilot per surveillance helicopter. Two or three pilots of you want round-the-clock surveillance. That puts some serious diminishing returns into trying to record more than just a handful of people. It also vastly increases the number of people who know about the surveillance and thus increases the chance of leaks and whistle-blowers if the surveillance starts getting too Orwellian.

Duration : manned aircraft gotta land every so often so the pilot can eat, sleep, etc. Drones, not so much.

Altitude : a manned aircraft has to stay low enough for the pilots to breathe, or work out a sealed compartment and oxygen systems. Drones are only limited by the requirements on the engines.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but there's a few off the top of my head

Re:Why not?

[KGIII]

Nah, they've been armed longer than that. I had to go make sure but I had remembered documentaries on the subject. Here's a link:

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

Re:Why not?

[gmanterry]

what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

It's real simple regardless of the technology. If they have a warrant issued by a real judge for that one specific purpose (which means probable cause for a specific crime), even long-term surveillance that violates privacy is OK. You may not like this, but that's the way it has been for many decades.

On the other hand, no warrant, no privacy-violating surveillance. They can still watch/listen to you when you are in public, but they can't legally listen to your phone calls, listen to conversations inside your house that are not loud enough to be heard without augmentation, etc. What this means is that they can't fly a drone over your house in the middle of your 40 acres of land to watch or listen to you unless they have a warrant. I'd even argue that a drone looking into your fenced backyard that can't otherwise be seen from public property would require a warrant.

I believe that the cops are using infrared cameras on planes to locate illegal marijuana cultivation and have been doing so for decades. They don't require a warrant.

Re:Why not?

[will_die]

The Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, thankfully still the majority, ruled that this was not the case. The use of technology "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." required a warrant.

Re:Why not?

[kilfarsnar]

what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

It's real simple regardless of the technology. If they have a warrant issued by a real judge for that one specific purpose (which means probable cause for a specific crime), even long-term surveillance that violates privacy is OK. You may not like this, but that's the way it has been for many decades.

On the other hand, no warrant, no privacy-violating surveillance. They can still watch/listen to you when you are in public, but they can't legally listen to your phone calls, listen to conversations inside your house that are not loud enough to be heard without augmentation, etc. What this means is that they can't fly a drone over your house in the middle of your 40 acres of land to watch or listen to you unless they have a warrant. I'd even argue that a drone looking into your fenced backyard that can't otherwise be seen from public property would require a warrant.

In light of recent news about the NSA spying on everyone, these limitations do not fill me with confidence. Put another way, I don't trust the federal government to follow the law anymore.

Re:Why not?

[kilfarsnar]

NOW... if they arm the flippin' things (even with non-lethal ordinance) or they say it's cool for them to check out the inside of buildings' windows then it's alllllll over.

Yeah, for you and the rest of us...

Re:Why not?

[stenvar]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

Sure, if we impose the same visibility requirements and an enforceable limit on the total number of drones in existence. If we don't, they aren't "doing the same thing", because the way prices are coming down, it won't be long until each of us can have their own personal surveillance drone following them everywhere.

Re:Why not?

[stenvar]

Oh no, our government is saving time and money! Stop them! I get your complaint, but that is literally what technology is for.

Except they aren't "saving time and money", they are keep spending the same (or more money) and doing more and more surveillance.

Given that computers, drones, and other technologies etc. have greatly reduced the cost of policing, tax collecting, spying, etc. we should greatly reduce the budgets of these agencies.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think if you talk to the people who are currently being blown to pieces by missiles fired from U.S. drones in Pakistan, you might find that those aircraft can carry more than a fucking camera.

People like you don't deserve the freedom that your own ancestors fought for.

Re:Why not?

[datavirtue]

So now we have people defending the efficiency of deploying drones on the populace? When the barrier was high costs we were assured that it would be used only when it was really needed. Eliminate the cost and.....

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So what I hear you saying is that if for some reason helicopters became much cheaper and easier to use they would need to be made illegal too.

Re:Why not?

[datavirtue]

Don't be stupid. It is only a matter of time before they are armed and used to eliminate targets. Go boil a frog dumbass.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't spend any effort on catching criminals?

Re:Why not?

[datavirtue]

I imagine the drones being programmed to detect and inventory personal gardens or food production facilities. The government seems awful interested in or paranoid of unknown/un-tracked food production. This aspect of government intervention isn't really noticed by people until you live in agricultural areas where it is not uncommon to get harassed by the USDA--especially if you have acreage.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

This is not an argument to ban drones. This is an argument to lower the surveillance budget of law enforcement as technology makes surveillance cheaper.

it is just wasteful to force law enforcement to spend more money on obsolete technologies as a way of restricting their reach. We may as well force them to only use computers made before 1970 so they can only do so many database searches per day.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You can't use your helicopters against them either. I get why your world view would make you opposed to drones. I do not see why you would support helicopter surveillance.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

We as a society can decide how much surveillance we want and whether we want the ability (and the criminals to have the ability) of knowing when they are being watched. Once we decide this, we can decide what rules need to be in place to make sure law enforcement does not overreach. This is true of improving and drone technology as well as improving helicopter technology.

The rules we set for law enforcement shouldn't be tied to a specific technology (e.g. helicopters are ok and drones are not), Helicopters could get cheaper and quieter with new materials. We need to set limits on how much surveillance is allowed and encourage law enforcement to use the cheapest means to achieve this level of surveillance without exceeding it.

Simply banning drones while allowing helicopters ensures that there will be future abuse because it does not get to the root of the issue. Poorly thought out laws lead to poor results.

Re:Why not?

[hawguy]

So what I hear you saying is that if for some reason helicopters became much cheaper and easier to use they would need to be made illegal too.

Well no, but they would be subject to the same types of concerns, whether or not they would be made illegal depends on society.

But no worries, if helicopters suddenly were available for $50,000, then that means society has already made vast changes in other ways, perhaps through cheap interstellar alien slave labor who brought with them vast stores of raw materials to make helicopters.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding?!

You must be talking about military-grade, high capability drones. However there are lots of other kinds, and many that are multiple orders of magnitude cheaper than a helicopter.

You can get an RPV with a camera, wireless real-time transmission of images, and modest capability for a couple of grand. Cheap enough that hobbiests on a tight budget can make them. Average joes with some mechanical capability and an itch to scratch. Check it out, this area is exploding in popularity, among the Maker set and others.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You mean if suddenly the cheapest helicopters were $50,000 instead of $80,000 it would mean the world was a drastically different place?

Re:Why not?

[bonehead]

as long as they get a warrant before peeking at US citizens.

The reality is that they do plenty of peeking with or without a warrant. They only bother with the warrant when they're going to need to be able to admit the evidence in court.

Re:Why not?

[bonehead]

If I know an alcoholic who drives drunk every day, does that make it ok for him to do it again tomorrow?

After all, "he's already doing it"!

Re:Why not?

[hawguy]

You mean if suddenly the cheapest helicopters were $50,000 instead of $80,000 it would mean the world was a drastically different place?

No, I mean if the helicopters used for police surveillance cost $50,000 instead a million dollars plus several hundred dollars an hour in operating costs.

$80,000 wouldn't even pay the annual salary for a pilot, and I don't even know if it would buy a high quality FLIR camera.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slipper slopes apply to policy, not technology.

For technology we use Murphys law. Feel free to apply it to this situation.

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

1. Drones have pilots too.

2. You can get pilots for cheaper than $80,000.

3. You can get helicopters for less than $1M.

4. Sticking a camera on a helicopter is easier and cheaper than sticking the same camera on a drone.

The government just likes to spend more money on things. That doesn't mean it has to.

Re:Why not?

[swillden]

On the other hand, no warrant, no privacy-violating surveillance. They can still watch/listen to you when you are in public

I don't think that's enough.

It was fine in the past because it simply wasn't feasible for government to surveil everyone all of the time. It was too costly. As technology reduces the cost, we may get to a point where it is perfectly feasible for everyone to be watched all of the time except when they're in their homes with blinds drawn -- and given enough data collected on your movements and actions in public, they can probably deduce most of what you do at home as well.

I think we're eventually going to have to either start imposing limits on data collected in public, or else just give up on the idea of privacy. I know which approach I prefer.

Re:Why not?

[IndustrialComplex]

What happens when you dust a crowd of protestors with a chemical or radioactive marker and then track their movements via chemical/radiological sensors tuned to those specific signatures?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

and I've never seen a helicopter that can fly into my backyard.

A couple hundred bucks will get you a really decent RC one from Amazon or Radio Shack, etc. Big enough to mount some cameras on-board.
Or if you're on a tight budget, you can find some in the toy section at Wal-Mart for under $50. But you'll need a pretty small recording device.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

More to the point, we're already OK with spy satellites. So at what altitude are we no longer concerned?

I can buy a 'drone' on Amazon for under a hundred bucks, and it'll carry a camera phone. Which has a map and GPS, and if I really want to get fancy I could probably rig something up with a Raspberry Pi to control the thing.

Re:Why not?

[BrookSmith]

As I understand it the FBI's role is primarily to protect American interests, does anybody else find it interesting that FBI director Robert Mueller is not forth coming with information and its seems that even the most basic information needs to be dragged out of him - like pulling teeth. Surely if everything is above board the FBI are indeed serving the interests of all Americans then this guy should be a little more open and informative about their activities. The question is Robert Mueller - what are you trying to hide.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply banning drones while allowing helicopters ensures

How fortunate that I didn't propose that. But you seem to be unable to read two sentences without getting confused.

We as a society can decide how much surveillance we want and whether we want the ability (and the criminals to have the ability) of knowing when they are being watched. Once we decide this, we can decide what rules need to be in place to make sure law enforcement does not overreach. This is true of improving and drone technology as well as improving helicopter technology.

"We as a society" aren't deciding any of this. We have an out of control executive branch that is lying through its teeth to get elected and then does something completely different. That's not unexpected in principle, but lately it has been getting more out of control by the year, mostly because morons like you actually seem to want it that way.

Re:Why not?

[davester666]

Really? You want to live in a society where if you step outside your home, a recording of everything you say or do is kept by the gov't? Everywhere you go, everyone you meet or talk to, recorded and kept indefinitely.

That will separate people into two groups.

1. Commoners.
2. People with access to this database. People from group 1 better not even look sideways at people in this group, because there will be something in that record of you breaking any number of laws, most of which you would go "WTF? That's illegal?".

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because humans aren't scalable. Automated drones are.

Re:Why not?

[RabidReindeer]

On the other hand, no warrant, no privacy-violating surveillance. They can still watch/listen to you when you are in public

I don't think that's enough.

It was fine in the past because it simply wasn't feasible for government to surveil everyone all of the time. It was too costly. As technology reduces the cost, we may get to a point where it is perfectly feasible for everyone to be watched all of the time except when they're in their homes with blinds drawn -- and given enough data collected on your movements and actions in public, they can probably deduce most of what you do at home as well.

I think we're eventually going to have to either start imposing limits on data collected in public, or else just give up on the idea of privacy. I know which approach I prefer.

I know which idea is more likely to be practical, which is why I'm more inclined to say "fine, as long as EVERYONE can see it".

Every few years, the various states of the USA conduct aerial surveys of the entire state. This data is public information, often available for only the price of copying. I can state this with total confidence, because I once worked on a project where we acquired our state's imagery and it was something like $30 plus shipping them a hard drive for them to load the data into. This, by the way, is the exact same data that Google maps incorporates.

Typically, this data has a resolution of 1 meter or less, which doesn't admit to much privacy. Less, when you consider that it can often be cross-matched to Google Street View images. And that, incidentally, is one of the reasons metadata is dangerous. You can combine multiple sources and draw conclusions. Which may or may not be correct.

So yes, even if you live off in the wild backwoods, you're still living in a fishbowl. The only visual privacy you have is what may be afforded by walls, roofs, or trees. And that's before law enforcement agencies get out the advanced technology. Allowing for the fact that even the airplane-based photography used to be considered "advanced".

Where do we draw the line? In practical terms, probably about treetop level. Everything higher has been compromised already.

And that's just the aerial component. We also are awash in cameras and other monitoring systems. Because the cameras mounted on major roadways in the city I live in are part of a public network, I can view traffic conditions from my desktop. I can even view traffic conditions in other cities from my desktop. And then there are the various public webcams.

So smile. And pass the TetraMin.

Re:Why not?

[Gription]

Wow! This level of paranoia usually requires medication.

There is no shadowy conspiracy where "they" are trying to get you by insuring that there is enough crime. Government is about control combined with the incompetence of the random action that comes from thousands of legs trying to haul the beast in every direction.

Re:Why not?

[nabsltd]

In light of recent news about the NSA spying on everyone, these limitations do not fill me with confidence. Put another way, I don't trust the federal government to follow the law anymore.

Oh, I absolutely agree, and that does make my post more wishful thinking than reality.

But, if pre-9/11 law is followed, I really don't have an issue with drones or other high-tech tools in the hands of law enforcement. Get a judge to sign a warrant because you have probable cause of a specific crime, and that's as close to what the founding fathers envisioned as we can reasonably expect.

Re:Why not?

[hawguy]

1. Drones have pilots too.

2. You can get pilots for cheaper than $80,000.

Sure, but it's a lot cheaper to hire a drone "pilot" who took a vendor supplied 2 week training course versus hiring an experienced helicopter pilot with years of experience.

3. You can get helicopters for less than $1M.

But few police departments are going to use an $80,000 helicopter. Plus, if you're going to cut corners, you can get drones for a lot less than $50,000.

4. Sticking a camera on a helicopter is easier and cheaper than sticking the same camera on a drone.

You don't need to use the same camera - a drone can get much closer to the subject without arousing suspicion.

The government just likes to spend more money on things. That doesn't mean it has to.

Well, they don't have to spy on us either, but they do.

Re:Why not?

[sumdumass]

It leads to a government of the people ignoring the will of the people as well as the limitations imposed in it's creation that were primarily in place to protect the people from this kind of intrusion.

In other words, you could be completely free of any illegal or wrong doing and still not want the government to put microphones or cameras in your home or some location considered free from their influence and control. The government needs to either have permission granted to them or have a reasonable and articulate suspicion that those being investigated have, are in the process of, or about to commit a crime. Unfortunately, the government seems to be going from "this person is a suspected criminal, we need more evidence" to everyone might break a law so we need to be able to know everything possible in case we want to go after them.

Not only is that reprehensible- it is exactly that the protections in the US constitution are supposed to prevent the government from becoming. The English troops and government used to enter wherever they saw fit and turn the place upside down attempting to find evidence of wrong doing without even the slightest bit of accusation and they often took innocuous things out of context making innocent people subject to punishment. It did not all the sudden become a good idea for that to happen back then nor did it happen now.

Re:Why not?

[Em Adespoton]

Drone pilot vs chopper pilot: chopper pilot costs more
Drone size vs chopper size: well, pretty obvious (unless someone for some ludicrous reason comes up with a chopper-sized drone)
Drone noise vs chopper noise: there's a reason you didn't disagree with this ;)
Drone cost vs chopper cost:
Initial cost: Sure, you can get a top-of-the-line drone for $50,000, and you can get a bargain basement chopper for $80,000... but we're talking about what's actually used by the FBI for surveillance here. Observation helicopters don't come cheap. Drones aren't weaponized.
TCO: Once you roll in maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc. we shouldn't even be raising this as a debatable issue. Helicopters are known for being one of the highest-cost highest-maintenance vehicles in existence (next to aircraft carriers an the like).
Number of people to operate: Drone: 1 (pilot) or 2 (additional equipment operator). Chopper: ATC staff, heliport staff, pilot, copilot, equipment operator(s).

Cost advantage? priceless.

Not quite sure why you took issue with cost, even in that out of context quote. It's kind of like saying in a discussion about the legal and cultural impact of motor boats on secluded lakes that sometimes motor boats aren't actually that much more disruptive than human-powered boats. True, but completely beside the point, even if it tangentially addresses a portion of the case for not letting motor boats on the lakes (which isn't the issue under discussion).

Re:Why not?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Sure, but it's a lot cheaper to hire a drone "pilot" who took a vendor supplied 2 week training course versus hiring an experienced helicopter pilot with years of experience.

Why do you need a pilot with "years" of experience? There are pilots working for regional airlines making $25000 a year and living in apartments with 9 other pilots.

But few police departments are going to use an $80,000 helicopter. Plus, if you're going to cut corners, you can get drones for a lot less than $50,000.

Yes you can. All technology is getting cheaper. My point was not that the cheapest drones will come down to the price of the cheapest helicopters, but that everything is getting cheaper and while you may be freaked out by drones, even without drones, it is possible for the government to do this kind of spying cheaply with piloted aircraft as well, they just choose not to. They choose to do everything in a relatively more expensive way than necessary. We shouldn;t be relying on the high expense of piloted aircraft to be the check on how much surveillance occurs.

Re:Why not?

[tsotha]

Drone pilot vs chopper pilot: chopper pilot costs more

A tiny bit. Not much, actually. There's not a lot of call for civilian chopper pilots, and the army trains thousands of them.

Drone size vs chopper size: well, pretty obvious (unless someone for some ludicrous reason comes up with a chopper-sized drone)

Drone noise vs chopper noise: there's a reason you didn't disagree with this ;)

You can do surveillance from up to ten kilometers away, depending on what sensors you have. Nobody will see or hear a helicopter that far away, and if they did they'd assume it was on some other business.

Initial cost: Sure, you can get a top-of-the-line drone for $50,000, and you can get a bargain basement chopper for $80,000... but we're talking about what's actually used by the FBI for surveillance here. Observation helicopters don't come cheap. Drones aren't weaponized.

You're way off on these numbers. The kinds of drones they actually use for surveillance cost more than a million dollars before you add the sensor package. The cheaper ones are mostly just toys - they don't have the payload or power to be of much use. On the other hand, a chopper costs about $500k, and will run up to about $3m with all the latest equipment. That's about what the drone will cost for the same capability.

TCO: Once you roll in maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc. we shouldn't even be raising this as a debatable issue. Helicopters are known for being one of the highest-cost highest-maintenance vehicles in existence (next to aircraft carriers an the like).

Yes, helicopters cost a lot to maintain. But drones crash more often and have to be replaced. Based on the military's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan TCO for the cheaper drones (and by that I mean in the million dollar range) is about 2/3 what they spend on manned aircraft devoted to the same task. Then again, they decided not to retire the U-2 because it was cheaper to operate than the (expensive) RQ-4.

Not quite sure why you took issue with cost, even in that out of context quote.

Because if they aren't markedly cheaper, the government won't have more incentive to use drones than they already use helicopters. People are worried the feds are going to blanket the skies with drones and watch everybody going about their daily business. In the short term this just isn't going to happen. They're too expensive.

Now, having said that let me say in the long run it seems like the cost of drones will come down considerably. But who knows? There are lots of things that were supposed to be much cheaper eventually and turned out not to be, like nuclear power or high speed rail.

Re:Why not?

[redneckmother]

If 'drone' is such a big scary word, then why are meetings over represented with both marketing drones and management drones?

I think you just proved GP's point...

This post is trolling for goverement dissenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're on a list for drones to monitor!

Re:This post is trolling for goverement dissenters

[ackthpt]

Now you're on a list for drones to monitor!

Watch, it's not the type of drones you expect - you are suddenly set upon by telephone sanitizers, account executives, and marketing analysts.

Don't try to shoo them away to another world, for all you know someone may catch a disease from a dirty telephone.

Re:This post is trolling for goverement dissenters

[oodaloop]

Watch, it's not the type of drones you expect -

So these aren't the drones I'm looking for?

Re:This post is trolling for goverement dissenters

[gaudior]

So these drones are the ones on the lookout for enormous star-goats?

Stocks rising...

[lymond01]

...in crowbar manufacturing.

Y'know...

[ackthpt]

I thought there seemed to be a large rise in RC Model clubs around here suddenly.

De-bullshitted translation

[TWiTfan]

'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.'

Translation: We do whatever the fuck we want with them. Fuck the Constitution

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of the Constitution do you think prohibits the government from flying in public airspace? Why on earth would they be allowed to do it with manned surveillance vehicles, but not with unmanned ones?

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm pretty sure the 4th Amendment protects the airspace outside of my windows, in my backyard, on my roof, etc.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of FBI director Robert Mueller's testimony that what they're doing regarding citizen privacy is "worthy of legislation" did you not understand? If he thinks what they are doing is worthy of legislation, you can pretty well bet that it is; no tin foil hat required. Basically all privacy issues with regard to government result from the tension between the fourth amendment and what the government wants to do. That's the constitutional connection you're missing.

--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read up on the difference between police, military and intelligence services.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[icebike]

True, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution only protects us from against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant for most searches. The word "unreasonable" has been slowly leveraged by the courts over the decades to allow all sorts of impromptu searches by Police.

But there was no aircraft when the 4th was penned, and had their been, I seems that the practice of using an aircraft for police observation would certainly have been curtailed.

The use of a manned aircraft to search your property brings with it immediate and obvious notification. Its big and noisy and expensive, the pilot has to pee once in a while meaning it could never be continuous, with or without a warrant.

But with small, reasonably quiet battery operated drones, you can park it outside someones apartment window, and watch what is going on inside, useing thermal imaging, remote sound recording, and full motion video, and you can do this 24/7 using a couple of devices that cost less than $5000 each. And you can do it without a warrant, because you are not actually entering the premises.

If your conscious allows you to sneak that sort of activity in as being "not unreasonable" you probably have a career opportunity at a three letter agency.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

A 12 gauge shotgun also works well.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

But there was no aircraft when the 4th was penned, and had their been, I seems that the practice of using an aircraft for police observation would certainly have been curtailed.

What you just said, police observation, why would that be prohibited by the 4th? Never mind using a vehicle while doing it, why would observation be unreasonable when the 4th was penned? The spirit of the amendment is to (IMO) prevent the government from harassing citizens as they go about their lives.

It's hard for me to understand how a high flying drone, a helicopter, or a policeman standing on the corner violates the letter or even the spirit of the 4th, unless you understand it to mean something entirely different than I do. ALL of those COULD be done in a harassing way, I get that, but they are not in and of themselves really bothering anyone or interrupting their lives... OK, some people just hate the sight of authority, I get it.. but, come on.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, another drone has been outed...
drone on, drone...

(if you don't understand the difference between living free and CONTROLLING YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT, and the government controlling you, you are hopeless...)

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[icebike]

It violates the letter of the 4th because it is a SEARCH.

If you have something sitting in your front yard you are clearly not concerned with it being public.
But if you grow your pot well inside your property shielded by trees, or you like to entertain the ladies
out by your shielded pool, or in your second story bedroom, you have the right to expect a search
warrant to be delivered to access these areas.

If you value your privacy so little that none of this concerns you, I respectfully suggest you butt out
of the discussion because your willingness to subject yourself to such intrusion becomes a real
and present danger to the rest of us.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[stenvar]

And a little later that's followed by "that's old news and there is no need to talk about it anymore".

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[stenvar]

The part against unreasonable search and seizure. Your neighbor may fly above your home and take pictures, the government is not allowed to. See, according to our Constitution, the government should have fewer rights than citizens. In fact, the federal government should only have those rights enumerated and specifically granted to it, and I'm pretty sure that flying over my backyard and taking pictures isn't among those.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[TsuruchiBrian]

Unfortunately air is mostly transparent. Maybe you need better curtains.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[TsuruchiBrian]

There were no drones when the 4th amendment was created, but there were fences, hills, ladders, windows, curtains and telescopes. I don't think drones constitute a paradigm shift resulting in the complete obsolescence of the 4th amendment.

Airplanes did come a little bit later, but they have been around for over 100 years now. Spy planes have been around for nearly as long.

A drone has no added ability to see into your house. Yes it can see into your backyard, but so can someone with a ladder. Yes a drone can use infrared, but so can a person on a ladder. or someone in a van parked on your street, or a manned aircraft flying overhead.

The concern should be with the level of surveillance not with the fact that the sensors are mounted on an aircraft whose pilot is on the ground. People are freaking out over the wrong thing.

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:De-bullshitted translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of FBI director Robert Mueller's testimony that what they're doing regarding citizen privacy is "worthy of legislation" did you not understand? If he thinks what they are doing is worthy of legislation, you can pretty well bet that it is; no tin foil hat required. Basically all privacy issues with regard to government result from the tension between the fourth amendment and what the government wants to do. That's the constitutional connection you're missing.

What you hope Mueller he said: "Gee, Congress, this is pretty controversial, and we should probably have some legislated limits on how far we can take this, so we don't abuse it." What Mueller really meant: "Gee, Congress, please pre-legalize every possible abuse of this tech, so that when we get around to abusing it, everyone can point to the stupid citizens and tell them it was legal."

"Invites debate and legislation down the road"

[Anonymous Coward]

"We know this is dumb and illegal, so we're going to do it until someone passes a law that says not to."

Re:"Invites debate and legislation down the road"

[Anonymous Coward]

An old adage says "that which governs the best, governs the least and the closest to the people". That has been ignored by the porkers at the top and their supporters keeping them there, which of course are those profiting from the pork. The US Government needs weened from its aphabet soup pig slop.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."--Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Way too much unnecessary evil coming out of Washington these days, elsewhere too.

Of course they barely use them

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones are a LOT more expensive to use than simply remotely activating the mic and camera on someone's phone (a feature which ALL smartphones support, even when they are turned off).

They don't need to use drones to monitor us because we already bought and carry around the remote monitoring hardware.

A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooh, lookit the scary drooooone! For fuck's sake, people, we do not have to buy into hysterical rebranding of bog-standard technologies. It's a fucking camera on a fucking light aircraft. ZOMFG, the FBI is using CAMERAS! ZOMFG, they are putting the scaaary cameras on LIGHT AIRCRAFT! Are you scared yet??? Cameras! On aircraft! I bet nobody ever fucking thought of putting a camera on an aircraft before. This changes everything!

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Sparticus789]

Cameras that carry 5-mile range missiles

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[lightknight]

Ah, the cyberwar makes sense now. The government wants to pre-emptively remove anyone from the population who has the skillset to override the drones, and turn them back on their controllers. With no one alive to disable those things if the powers that be decide to...exercise their culling capacity...well, this makes sense now, doesn't it?

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Wyatt Earp]

Those only fit on Predator (MQ-1) and Reapers (MQ-9), they can't put missiles on light surveillance drones

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Perl-Pusher]

Ever heard of targeted killings of Americans using drones? http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 The thing about helicopters is there is a pilot that you can shoot back at if your life is in jeopardy. And of course, the government never gets it wrong do they? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601386.html

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Anonymous Coward]

You all are asking the wrong questions. I said they were doing this type of thing a long time ago. I was told to tighten my tinfoil hat. Funny, because it seems that every Orwellian conspiracy that gets discussed and dismissed as "bat shit crazy" only months later comes true and is then accepted. All the slippery slope comments being meaningless because it is spoken of in terms of something we don't want to get on while we slide down it at ever increasing speeds...

The problem isn't that it is unmanned or manned, or whether it is legal. A manned craft takes a man to do it and be paid. An unmanned craft can provide 24 hour coverage of as many places as they want. You really want to live there? You want to live where they watch everything you do all the time? Save the "if you don't do anything wrong then what's the problem?" crap. Who the hell wants to live where you are being watched all the time? And if you think that isn't where we are headed then I don't know what to tell you.

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Applekid]

Those only fit on Predator (MQ-1) and Reapers (MQ-9), they can't put missiles on light surveillance drones

Guess they'll just have to settle for the lighter 2-mile range missiles.

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Wyatt Earp]

And you still can't mount a Griffin (AGM-176) on a light surveillance drone.

The vast majority of drones owned by the Feds, law enforcement and military are sub-20 pound things like what Seattle PD tried.

Seattle PD used 3.5-pound Draganflyer X6 six-rotor helicopters

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Anonymous Coward]

and YOU are not understanding the principles involved, even though it was explained very clearly a bunch of posts upstream:
the 4th amendment becomes effectively abandoned, as it has no meaning any longer under a pervasive surveillance society...
a techie type should understand the point the poster above mentioned: HOW can you then object when nanobotz are crawling up your ass ? ? ?

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[akgooseman]

I'm not too worried about individuals seeing me. I care deeply about how the government seeing and tracking me, particularly in real-time. They have to power to blatantly or subtly do me harm. They can trump up charges, because everyone eventually breaks a law, and throw me in jail. If I'm driving to a protest, they can arrange for my credit card to not work at the gas pumps. Deny fuel to enough people and the protest fizzles. Strategically block one or two opposition leaders this way and stall whole movements. If this hasn't already been done, it will be.

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[TsuruchiBrian]

We should also ban the FBI from using cars, because some cars have missiles too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avenger_missile.jpg /s

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[TsuruchiBrian]

You are cool with helicopter surveillance because you feel comfortable shooting at the helicopter pilot? Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[IndustrialComplex]

How much does a hand grenade weigh?

Re:A drone is just a light aircraft with a camera

[Wyatt Earp]

The US military M67 grenade weighs 400 grams.

A small drone like draganflyer-x6 can carry up to 270 grams (like a small digital camera)

http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x6/

Think about it

[Sparticus789]

If the FBI had drones in 1992, they would have launched a hellfire missile and killed the entire Weaver family. And it would have been blamed on a gas leak and covered up.
If the FBI had drones in 1993, they would have launched a hellfire missile at the Branch Davidians and killed all of them. The FBI would have blamed the Branch Davidians and said they committed mass suicide.

We would have never known the truth.

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the only thing holding back government coverups is a lack of remote-controlled airplanes, you're both naive and cynical. They could certainly do the coverups if they wanted to, but apparently, there's no INTENT.

Re:Think about it

[Sparticus789]

Never said it was. With drones in the skies, the FBI doesn't even need to bother with a siege or coverup. It makes their ability to get away with murder even easier than before.

They can just launch a drone in Chicago, fly it over to Idaho, and blow up anybody's house. Nobody would know about it, no witnesses, and most importantly, a drone with minimal radar signature and no recorded takeoffs in the area (remember, these things can fly for 36 hours). Only 1 person even has to know the mission, the person behind the joystick.

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes your scenarios so different that it can't be done with a cruise missile right now, and for the last 20 years? OMG, maybe it's already happened!

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure no police force has cruise missiles. If they tried to get them, there would be a storm of protest. Armed drones are military technology, and they have no place in the hands of US police.

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Even that one person does not need to know the mission.

You can cut their info down to this drone is X miles from really bad guy target HERE. take them out.

Could you tell where you were just by flying around? Without any major landmarks nearby?

"i was just following orders"

Re:Think about it

[TsuruchiBrian]

The FBI still doesn't have hellfire missiles, they have RC airplanes with cameras on them.

Conflating "drone" with "weaponized military drone" is like conflating "car" with "Abrams tank".

Re:Think about it

[Sparticus789]

Cruise missiles require a long and complex chain of command. At a minimum, the Captain, First Officer, and one more officer would have to know where the cruise missile is actually going. Plus, the other 200 people on board would know that their ship launched a cruise missile 100 miles off the coast of California.

With a drone, only the pilot needs to know. Everyone else would think it's a "routine surveillance mission"

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, because the FBI likes nothing better than for its agents to be able to kill people at whim without any reference to their orders or chain of command...

There's paperwork involved every time a cop fires a gun for any reason whatsoever. If you seriously imagine FBI agents will be flying drone missions that "nobody else ever has to know about", then you've been wearing your tinfoil hat too long.

Or if it will appeal more to your paranoid fantasy circuits, look at it this way: do you really imagine the directors of the FBI are likely to say - to their underlings - "go forth and kill whoever you want, we don't need to know about it"? If they did, how long would it be before some disgruntled employee took them at their word and, umm, created a vacancy in the hierarchy?

Re:Think about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? How does a cruise missile (which can be launched from land OR air) have a more complex chain of command? You think the Hellfire missile magically loads itself onto the drone and will not be noted as "missing" when the drone returns WITHOUT IT? And you think the drone pilot makes unilateral decisions to launch without anyone else noticing? Seriously? Are you even thinking this through?

Re:Think about it

[Sparticus789]

For a drone, the only people that need to know are the pilot and 1 member of the ground crew. Cruise missiles launched from the air are from larger planes (like a B-52) which has a much larger ground crew. More people that know means the less likely it is that the event can be kept secret.

Re:Think about it

[Sparticus789]

Perhaps you should refresh yourself on history

Before some wise guy says it

[freeweaver]

It does not matter whether its a suprise to you or not. The point is to be outraged by people snooping on you without your knowledge. Thats very VERY creepy don't you think?

If not, then I guess you won't mind me coming over to your house, climbing a ladder and peeping through your bedroom window, right?

Please think about the ramifications of letting this kind of thing happen without any oversight. this is not the government being stupid. It is a governemt that wants to have ever more control over your everyday life. Do you want that? Think real hard now please. Because I can't name one single authority in history that has gained even half of the control the US government has, without it turning VERY NASTY!

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[simonbp]

And how is this any different from the FBI using aeroplanes or helicopters or cars?

For all the armwaving and hysteria about drones, they aren't a fundimentally new technology and are not without copious legal precident.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this any different from the FBI using aeroplanes or helicopters or cars?

It's cheaper than planes, drastically cheaper the copters. While it's more expensive than a car, it can see you can't see from the ground. Sure it's legal, but as areal surveillance, gets cheaper and cheaper, we will spend more time being watched. I don't want to be monitored by the government every time I leave the house even if it is legal and not unprecedented.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[freeweaver]

aeroplanes, helicopters, cars, *and* Drones

you see the difference? There are now *more* ways to snoop on people then before. That means more oportunities to gather data from a different viewpoint.

In other words, the problem is now worse.

Please tell me you understand

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Cost.

"aeroplanes", helicopters, cars, etc all require significantly more maintenance than drones. Additionally they require pilots/drivers who must be paid for their time. These drones fly with minimal supervision, are much cheaper to purchase and operate, and hence will be used in situations where using a manned surveillance vehicle would be cost-prohibitive.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[cervesaebraciator]

And how is this any different from the FBI using aeroplanes or helicopters [...]

Expense. Airplanes and helicopters have to be heavy and powerful enough to transport people. Therefore, the initial expense, fuel, and maintenance costs will always be higher, placing a greater practical limitation on how much surveillance one can conduct. This causes a law enforcement agency to have to prioritize its surveillance, acting as a natural check against an all-seeing, all-intrusive security-state and requiring that they focus on areas where they might have reasonable suspicion.

[...] or cars?

Again, expense. To have eyes on a suspect you must pay the man whose eyes are employed. (Plus, the people in that car would need a warrant before stepping onto my property.) Again, this forces an agency to focus their use of resources. As the cost of drones decreases, and as their surveillance activities are increasingly automated, the ability to watch and record everything becomes a practical possibility. This is a fundamental change.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[http]

In case you haven't noticed, the USA has already turned very nasty.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[meta-monkey]

The "freedom loving" crowd will only be outraged if there are gun grabbing hooks attached to the drones.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[Maudib]

As long as they get a warrant from an actual court, then thats fine.

We can't be ludites and tell cops or the FBI not to use technology, that will just result in them regulating technology. What we need to do is force them to follow the damn constitution and get a warrant to use any of these things.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[TsuruchiBrian]

Except that drones *are* aeroplanes and helicopters.

According to your logic we should also ban the use of red helicopters. Because if we allow them then the government will be able to use aeroplanes, helicopters, cars, *and* red helicopters.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[TsuruchiBrian]

So rather than legally limiting the amount of allowable surveillance you would rather depend on the expense of helicopters to deter law enforcement from overreaching?

What if some new material allows helicopters to be made lighter, quieter and more cheaply. Now the FBI can do exactly what we all feared as long as they make sure a person is physically sitting in the helicopter.

Relying on things to remain expensive as a check on government is probably not a bet we should be making as a society. Look at how well it has worked for drones.

Re:Before some wise guy says it

[cervesaebraciator]

So rather than legally limiting the amount of allowable surveillance you would rather depend on the expense of helicopters to deter law enforcement from overreaching?

You're attributing to me a position I neither supported by my comment nor otherwise hold. I was responding to the aspect of GP's post which dismissed concerns about drones as "armwaving and hysteria" since "they aren't a fundimentally [sic] new technology and are not without copious legal precident [sic]." My response was to indicate that drone technology does bring about significant change, i.e. concerns over drones is understandable because of the new circumstances they create and they are not directly analogous (much less equal) to the use of a helicopter inasmuch as they make it more practical to do what would be both unacceptable and impractical with a helicopter. The use of a helicopter or plane to do general surveillance (of the kind we may soon expect from drones) would be the exact opposite of "particularly describing the place to be searched". So, I would also be against the use of planes and helicopters to accomplish this sort of surveillance--but that simply wasn't the topic I was addressing. I'm all for putting legal limitations on police surveillance with planes, helicopters, drones, or trained spy parrots (should that become an issue). The fact that I chose to focus on one and only one aspect of GP's post cannot rightly be construed to indicate my support for anything I didn't blatantly condemn in my own.

What oversight?

[sjbe]

'Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.'"

What oversight? Maybe she is in the inner circle that knows what is going on with the NSA but that is hardly what I would call oversight. A (mostly) secret program with secret directives overseen by a secret court with secret findings is not what I consider adequate oversight. There is no means by which the public will ever be informed of the findings of the surveillance and thus there is no possible way for the public to know if their rights are being compromised or if laws are being broken.

With regard to restricting the use of drones to protect citizens' privacy, Mueller said, 'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.'

Meaning the FBI is doing whatever they feel like until someone tells them to cut it out. Apparently the FBI thinks oversight means spying on us from the sky.

Re:What oversight?

[turp182]

What she meant to say was that they are subject to sufficient SECRET legal oversight.

The plebes don't care anyway, they are watching TV.

Re:What oversight?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed another fact: Feinstein doesn't have to be worried about telephone and Internet surveillance because congress is exempt from it (unless they are specifically being investigated by the FBI.) On the other hand if you can fly a drone over her mansion, her personal privacy is violated.

Re:What oversight?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed another fact: Feinstein doesn't have to be worried about telephone and Internet surveillance because congress is exempt from it (unless they are specifically being investigated by the FBI.) On the other hand if you can fly a drone over her mansion, her personal privacy is violated.

The same way Feinstein wants to ban guns at the same time she'll be keeping hers and her armed guards, thank you very much.

Re:What oversight?

[meta-monkey]

Well, we can't have the serfs getting uppity, can we?

Re:What oversight?

[Anonymous Coward]

She doesn't get donations from the drone industry.

Where do I expect privacy?

[Intropy]

See, this drone thing doesn't really bother me. When I'm out and about I expect my actions to be public. If a drone is monitoring a private residence or business or following someone to one I think a warrant ought to be required (subject to the normal hot pursuit exceptions). But if you're monitoring some public area, no big deal. The internet and telephone surveillance on the other hand is a complete invasion of an area where I expect privacy and am guaranteed it by the constitution.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it concern you that the head of the FBI disagrees with you? He's the one who said legislation is called for, when asked about privacy issues. The implication I take away from that is that you, or at least I, should be bothered, if he's telling congress that they should be bothered... and that's exactly what he's telling them.

--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

See this is exactly my issue that you say you are okay with. The problem is that you don't care. You don't think twice about the limits of Government and their involvement in your everyday life. You should care about your Constitutional Rights because when you don't care, this is what happens.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but... DRONES!!!

Hmmm, evidently you're not terrified of the word. Let's make it scarier: Autonomous Surveillance Flying Death Machines! BOO!!! Still not scared? Still prefer privacy on the Internet over privacy in public space? Well, you're clearly a terrorist then...

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The internet and telephone surveillance on the other hand is a complete invasion of an area where I expect privacy and am guaranteed it by the constitution.

lol. Very funny!

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Intropy]

Yes it bothers me that the head of the FBI disagrees with me about the telephone and internet monitoring. That's illegal, full stop.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Intropy]

No, you have that wrong. I do care. I do think twice. I thought about this particular usage and conclude that I do not have a problem in principle with drones being used to monitor areas. I certainly think they, like other technologies, could potentially be misused, and I would seek to prevent their misuse. But I do not think that they are a problem in and of themselves.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's not privacy we expect, but the ability to be forgotten. I think most of us are OK with police on the street seeing what they see, but there's something disturbing about the fact that our actions are recorded for as long as the records are kept. There's also the fact that this data can be labeled, stored, and searched without end. Say I'm at a political rally against a party I don't agree with. When that party wins, they can use the data on that rally to know that I disagree. Perhaps they can't legally do things to make my life worse, but there are subtle ways to abuse this power that are in a legal gray area. I want the right to have my history fade away and to know that any thing that I've done in the past will fade with time. I don't want to be immortal on a disk somewhere.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[SJHiIlman]

But if you're monitoring some public area, no big deal.

Wrong. Having government surveillance devices everywhere is an awful thing whether or not they're in public places. It is foolish to expect that they wouldn't abuse such powers.

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they get their rocks off over breaking the law to "protect the law" if they can't get a law passed making their methods illegal?

Re:Where do I expect privacy?

[misexistentialist]

If a drone is monitoring a private residence or business or following someone to one I think a warrant ought to be required (subject to the normal hot pursuit exceptions). But if you're monitoring some public area, no big deal.

Public areas are bounded by businesses and private residences, so I don't really see the distinction. Drone sees all. Might come into play if you own a lot of acres, but a court ruled that cops can even install cameras on larger land holdings without a warrant. Strange how privacy was supposed to be a restriction on the government, but it ended being a restriction on us.

Anyway, this is a relief, I've been following you around for the past 6 months, and was starting to feel guilty, but now I know it's OK... as long as I stop sleeping under your bed (though it obviously doesn't bother you so what's the problem?!).

'America' Is The Next Afghanistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Every City Police Department and Mayor are boon'n for Drone !

This will certainly 'clean' up the FBIs killings in the near future, like about next week.

Only by court order *each* use and for how long

[GodfatherofSoul]

Any other definition will become blurred into total surveillance. Some guy on the most wanted list for 10 years could be used as an excuse for a drone hovering over your town 24/7.

Re:Only by court order *each* use and for how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Some guy on the most wanted list for 10 years could be used as an excuse for a drone hovering over your town 24/7.

Honestly, so fucking what?

Re:Only by court order *each* use and for how long

[cervesaebraciator]

Why would an AC make such a comment?

Re:Only by court order *each* use and for how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait for the future of the algorithmic cities: the constant surveillance is required for the operation of automated systems such as traffic control, emergency management, environmental observations and other systems management. Real-time suspect apprehension services come as a free bonus from the community service companies near you. The constant drone observation is considered an essential service by then.

Re:Let's hope so

[Sparticus789]

What they do not tell you, is that the same mount points underneath the wings used for fuel tanks can be changed to carry missiles in a matter of minutes. So even those "civilian" drones have the capability in 20 minutes to be sending hellfire missiles to the ground.

So much contempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

" it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road." Fuck, so much contempt in there: So he is the one who decides nowadays if something is worthy for legislation?

Re:Let's hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be downvoted, but this is the exact course that US UAVs took in the middle east. We were assured they were for reconnaissance only until they weren't.

Our country's finest hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Dianne Feinstein is worried about this? I thought she had no problems at all with the citizenry being completely powerless against the government.

Eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? A Democrat wanting larger Government for the larger Government created?

Times, they are a changin

[Guru80]

It wasn't very long ago that all this massive spying on U.S. citizens would have caused an outrage and demonstrations of epic proportions....now I see all these "so what? I have nothing to hide" comments or other similar rubbish. It doesn't matter if we have nothing to hide, it's one small (or significant depending on point of view) step at a time to slowly gain your indifference until our kids and grandkids live in a total surveillance state with no expectation or right to privacy in anything they do. That is the ultimate goal, in the name of our safety of course...because obviously somewhere over the last 60 years Americans became completely incapable of not feeling safe if our Government isn't holding onto our hand while we cross the street. It's suppose to be the other way around.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[wierd_w]

I would hazard a conjecture:

The current crop of citizens most interviewed by the media about this issue are in their 20s and 30s.

About a decade ago, pre september 11, those people would be in their teens and early 20s.

At that time, a goodly proportion of them would still be active participants in highschool, and coincidentally, this is also the time that the columbine high shootings occured. (1999) Even prior to this, the use of security cameras in hallways, classroorms, and commons areas in US highschools was on the rise. After the event, any question of if this was a good idea was summarily shouted down, amid personal accusations of endangering children.

It is now 10 years later, and the students subjected to the omnipresent institutionalized observation and invasion of privacy are now desensitized to the issue, and see it as just more of the same. The gravity of the situation is lost, as the cameras are not viewed as the threat to civil liberties that they truely are, but just another banal feature of daily life to be ignored.

I can't exactly prove this, but the effects of institutionalism on behavior should not be ignored. Just ask the folks at standford.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[bonehead]

Not nearly enough young people have read 1984.

We are now just an Xbox One and a subpoena (or FISA order) away from living in that wold.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[meta-monkey]

I think it's the other way around. Ms. Feinstein's generation does not understand computers and algorithms. They think the NSA spying (excuse me, "snooping") is fine because "no one is listening to your call." They do not understand that no one needs to listen to your call. The algorithms, the data mining, the constant churning correlating and profiling is what's petrifying, not the fact that somebody might listen to me order a pizza.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[wierd_w]

Honestly, it is probably both, coupled to the incompetent person's inability to recognize competence.

Much like with the ipad school webcam spying scandal, where school administrators deemed themselves sufficient oversight against abusive use of the technology, (when they clearly weren't, when they suspending the kid for eating mike and ikes) we have a government repesentative who feels that the federal review processes they have created behind walls of secrecy and confidentiality are sufficient oversight against larger abuses, like the production of huge statistical data caches to mine, and the invasion of privacy and disregard toward american citizens in general.

Feinstien is simply incompetent, and as such, is incapable of recognizing true competency.

In addition to this, there are people who truely are competent that simply are acting immoral, having been given carte blanc to do whatever the hell they want to "keep america safe from the boogyman!", without any truly meaningful oversight or restrictions, or penalties for their abuses of authority.

This on top of a steadily desensitized public.

Things don't look terribly bright for us.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, interactive TV.

It will also take Fahrenheit 451 to truely "advance" us to 1984. Once all History etc is purely digital then only have to hit the switch for "we have always been at war with Eurasia" etc. Of course variable terrorist groups are so much easier as well as more conducive to green card labor management.

Re:Times, they are a changin

[Guru80]

I use to scoff at those who made references to such things being possible in this country. We are pretty much there however and history is rewritten just in a slower manner through schools one generation at a time. The history I was taught when young and the history that is taught today is different enough to achieve the goals sought. My kids and I are growing up and older respectively in two very different expectations of what we should be allowed, at least if the educational process has it's way. That's a very sad thing to realize.

Remember when we had a constitution?

[intermodal]

Good times.

Re:Remember when we had a constitution?

[Sparticus789]

I'll be saying that on my porch in about 40 years. Sipping on water, because alcohol is "bad for you" and my Obamacare would be cancelled if I drank. Waving to the drones flying overhead and flipping off the DHS agents who drive by my house every 17 minutes.

Re:Remember when we had a constitution?

[stenvar]

Let's not be overly nostalgic here: government in the past was quite busy violating the constitution in many ways, often far worse than recent administrations (and both Bush and Obama really are near the bottom of the barrel when it comes to presidents). However, they had less technology to do so effectively; that is, most people could simply ignore whatever stupidity or corruption Washington was cooking up.

Re:Remember when we had a constitution?

[intermodal]

Doesn't change whether it's acceptable, though. The second something is being justified as "but X was worse..." the complaint is validated.

Re:Remember when we had a constitution?

[stenvar]

I'm not saying that it's "acceptable"; I'm saying that "remember when we had a constitution", i.e., the implication that lawlessness has increased, is wrong. Our politicians and police are no more corrupt or lawless than they used to be. What actually has changed is that they can do more damage than they used to, and that people have started noticing and are complaining more. The former is cause for concern, the latter is cause for hope.

I am more alarmed that

[X-Ray Artist]

1. Many people are not really bothered by this or the NSA's monitoring/data collection. The attitude of "I am doing nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide" seems to be the root of this one. 2. "Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight." What is "sufficient legal oversight?" How much are we, the people, going to subjugate ourselves to our "government of, by, & for the people?"

Re:I am more alarmed that

[bonehead]

1. Many people are not really bothered by this or the NSA's monitoring/data collection. The attitude of "I am doing nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide" seems to be the root of this one.

To those people, all I have to say is this:

If Diane Fucking Feinstein thinks the government might be overstepping their bounds, then you can bet your sweet ass there's something to worry about.

Re:I am more alarmed that

[Anonymous Coward]

2. "Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight." What is "sufficient legal oversight?" How much are we, the people, going to subjugate ourselves to our "government of, by, & for the people?"

If Diane Fucking Feinstein thinks the government might be overstepping their bounds, then you can bet your sweet ass there's something to worry about.

Nothing so tinfoily. By "oversight", all she meant was that her husband's defense contractor business is getting a cut of the telecom surveillance (not worrisome) biz, and isn't getting a cut of these drones (which would be very worrisome indeed!)

When the family business is getting fat contracts from legislation you sponsor, legislation to enable the funding is all the oversight that's needed or desired.

Re:I am more alarmed that

[bonehead]

That actually makes a lot of sense, too.

Wasn't familiar with her husband's line of work.

they told me i was a fool.

[nimbius]

but whos laughing now, WalMart? that 10-for-$10 sale on tin-foil was a fools dozen....like taking candy from a baby.

Senator Feinstein would be wrong...

[Mister Mudge]

According to article, 'Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.'"

Secret FISA courts are not, in any way, "sufficient legal oversight" and really are no legal oversight at all. Our legal system is based on the idea that judicial proceedings are done in public to prevent abuse and violations of peoples' rights. The FISA court not only renders opinions in secret but even knowledge of the cases it hears are classified. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

They do not have my permission to use...

[3seas]

... the taxes I pay to violate my constitutional rights.

Oh America

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it feel to know your country has been a police state for the last decade? To realize that wackadoos like Alex Jones are right? To sing your anthem at ball games hailing how awesome it is to be free, and that it was all hypothetically free? That every Memorial Day you celebrate that your country spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined? To know that the only countries you have more freedom than are China, North Korea, Cuba, and Sealand?

The enemy is here. The enemy is you.

New Roofing Material beign researched

[Lashat]

Well, not really. I am just in the procrastination stages right now. I am going to discover a new, inexpensive, roofing material that will scatter lidar, radar, infrared, thermal, microwave, and Wi-Fi Giving any home a passive cloaking device. We are looking into umbrellas as well.

Who want to fund my Kickstarter?

Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could get something done if the regulated "surveillance' instead of the technology used to do it. A unmanned aircraft (dammit there NOT drones - drones are autonomous) is no different from a manned one. Are we going to stop police from surveying farming areas looking for grow operations in corn fields? Is a liscence plate reader any different the writing the numbers down? No. The difference is there use. A reader can read every liscence plate all day. That's the kind of blanket surveillance we have to regulate. The tech isn't the problem.

Fuck "debate and legislation"!

[fustakrakich]

What is needed is the development of effective countermeasures to protect ourselves. Discussing whether they are right or wrong is such a useless waste of tine and only serves as a diversion.

Re:Fuck "debate and legislation"!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Let's hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that dumb. Bolting a missile to something doesn't make it capable of firing it. You need to also add both targeting and firing systems to do that. Even if you could why would they. This is the USA they already control the ground. Why the F would they use a $100,000 hellfire missile when the can just walk up and shoot you with a $2 bullet..

Surveillance on congress-persons?

[thewils]

Shouldn't members of the Senate and Congress be first to submit to phone/email surveillance and drone coverage?

After all they are very important people and they need to be kept safe from the terrorists. And I'm sure they have nothing illegal to hide.

Strange way of thinking

[future assassin]

You expect no privacy when you leave your house but expect it when your voice or date leave your house? I guess then citizen you wouldn't mind having a microphone or a camera attached to you when you leave your house.

The FBI and NSA WATCH Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know why none of this will be curtailed, it is because the watchers are watching the members of Congress and other political persons. People in power want to stay in power. Best way to stay in power is to have something on your enemy - political or otherwise. Drone surveillance and internet snooping reveals Congressman A is having a affair (assuming he isn't stupid enough to put it on Facebook). Same congressman wants to curtail NSA/FBI surveillance programs. Congressman is warned that 'certain embarrassing information' might be made public if he does anything. Congress beats chest in public hearings and TV quotes, then votes in favor of expansion of the program in late night vote. May get an IRS audit if he abstains from voting, or if it is felt he may be a danger to those in power. In the end, FBI/NSA get the money they want, Congressman gets his time in the spot light to 'look tough' and is reelected by those who only watch TV commercials before an election.

It is an old story. Hoover did it. The Germans did it. The Romans did it. Every powerful political party does it. Some are just better at keeping it out of the public eye than others are. The current party is not that good - otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

Who are these people?

[Dripdry]

Who are these people working at the FBI?
What is their mentality that they are doing all this and think they're actually defending our country and not enslaving it?
I would like to hear another few sides to these stories. I've heard a couple, I've met at least one FBI agent (scary guy, I am terrified this man is helping defend our country), can we get some more points of view?

I have R/C helicopters too

[russotto]

It'd be a damned shame if one of my R/C helicopters crashed into one of theirs. A damned shame.

warrant required...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government should not be able under any circumstances other than a public court order or warrant to allow the surveillance. The potential for abuse and proliferation is far to high. This includes all levels of government; local, state and Federal. Anything less is clearly government overreach.

In our defense, Senator

[ThatsNotPudding]

we're only a little bit pregnant.