Deal with drones comprehensively
Civilian and law enforcement uses raise many complicated issues.
Technology developed for the military often finds civilian use eventually. Radar, jet engines, even the Internet all developed with defense in mind. Now there are unmanned drones.
The non-military versions of drones differ from the military variety. They do not carry missiles, for example. Nevertheless, from highly specialized law enforcement models to homemade civilian ones with smartphones mounted on them, small, remote-controlled aircraft are taking to the skies.
That has Virginia lawmakers wading into the murky intersection of public safety, personal privacy and individual liberty.
January 18, 2013 - 8:24 AM
Maybe what we need in this country is a few million less paranoid people. Drones could have all sorts of uses for wildlife management, habitat research, forest fires, lost children and hikers, stranded campers, etc. Not every use or purpose is sinister and needs to be “stopped” or refused.
Also, by “agency” I am assuming you mean Homeland Security, ATF or a federal level law enforcement? Well, welcome to the world of spying if it catches the bad guys. There is no telling how often we are already on camera and monitored in public places or private property (for their protection) so why not for our own? Sure, a camera might catch you doing something criminal or incriminating. Am I really supposed to cry over that?
This slippery slope was crossed when radar guns, wiretaps and GPS tracking came into the picture. What is the difference in a human detective following you and a camera? A few yards or a mile? Adding video to the arsenal is a no-brainer and it will happen. Fighting or delaying the “good” implications for it seems just like so much more paranoia. Maybe we need to figure out why it is you think “they” are out to get us, before we go ape “stopping them”.
The old fashioned idea of requiring a warrant, which requires at minimum “probable cause” is still just as capable as ever when properly applied.
Sandi, one word . . . agreed.
It never ceases to amaze me (speaking rhetorically) that those who speak to civil rights & progress are the first to rationalize omni-present government & big brother society.
As to you only have to worry if you’re doing something wrong mantra…..what’s “wrong” is what ever the government says is wrong. We have a president quite fond of doing so by executive order. No representation, no due process, no appeal.
The present gun issue is a perfect example.
You are right Jim Lucas, the “present gun issue is a perfect example”. This nation is literally roiling from “the bad guys” and the paranoia of the freedom and liberty folks can only see any solution as more “intrusion”.
No matter the law, there is someone trying to figure their way to freedom from it and their ability to do as they please. That intention has to be met with the full force of a society saying “hell no, we are not going to take it any more”.
From the days of kindergarten, there has always been the reality that life is often “you only have to worry if you’re doing something wrong” and for some people, the wrong they are doing is monumental and well funded and has to be met with extra effort, extra initiatives and extra surveillance. Think of it as guards in schools.
None of that has to mean that our freedom is revoked, or due process is averted, but the paranoia of fearing the “omni-present government & big brother society” more than the people truly trying to destroy us, is destroying us IMO.
#4 I will leave your comments to speak for themselves.
Which is preferable to you not allowing my comments to speak for themselves. Thanks.