Crises and Rallying Cries

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Vaan

The problem I see is a lack of oversight and checks and balances. Quite simply the ethical guidelines and the laws aren't being kept in pace with the technology.

The same could be said about the gun laws, however there is no way that they can easily change the laws. Things are never as they seem and half of the time the technology is specifically designed to eventually be used for the things that you are against. I just think there should be regulations on that use, for example with survelliance to only be used on suspects in crimes etc and not just any citizen.

The public have a right to safety. We have the right to have a government that doesn't just do whatever the fuck it wants to us.

The public is the greatest threat to the public XD. The greatest reason this technology is being used is to try to keep society within means. And the government will do whatever it wants anyway, that will not change, all you can do is vote in someone you like who can screw another group that you don't like. That is all politics is - a popularity game.

@Vaan

The public is the greatest threat to the public XD.

A government that can do whatever it pleases to it's people is more dangerous than an enemy, and though there are dangerous people in society -- not everybody is a danger.

The greatest reason this technology is being used is to try to keep society within means.

No, the reason this technology is being used is to allow powerful interests including governmental, and corporate to maintain their power.

I just think there should be regulations on that use, for example with survelliance to only be used on suspects in crimes etc and not just any citizen.

There is such a thing -- it's called the 4th Amendment. The problem is that the powers that be don't want to follow it and have figured out every trick in the book it seems to maneuver around it. If they have the military do it, they don't have to follow the 4th Amendment; they could have private-interests do the surveillance and then give that to the government to use (technically the government isn't supposed to hire spies to circumvent the 4th Amendment, but if you argue national security and intelligence, and sources and methods you can get away with it)., the intelligence services aren't supposed to operate domestically, but now there is DHS which effectively is a fusion of local & state level law enforcement, federal law-enforcement, intelligence and military intelligence all whipped together into a smooth velvety mix.

The fact that these drones can operate with a lower-workload, possess greater endurance than manned aircraft, and with automation can require few operators to control massive systems of drones -- this allows for ubiquitous surveillance where government has cameras everywhere and can monitor everything 24/7. This is something a government who respects freedom, privacy, and individual liberty would not do.

You may foolishly believe that this is all about keeping us safe, but you're wrong. Hey, it probably isn't the first time, and probably not the last. And while people can protest this surveillance -- what if they don't know they're being spied on (in this way or some other way)? How could they protest that?

Also, being that drones can be armed, there's a safety risk and the worry that the government could decide to arm them and use them on American citizens. Oh, sure they'll be labeled terrorists, but the definition of terrorism is so conveniently broad and widens every day. How long before protest will constitute low-level terro-- oh wait... that's already happened!


Robyn C.
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!

Originally Posted by RobynC

SUBJECT 2

How long will it be before the government will label privacy/civil liberties advocates, as being equivalent to the terrorists in the Middle East? After all recently it's been stated that the drone has become a greater recruiting tool for terrorists than Guantanamo Bay; the drone has also been a big issue for civil-libertiarians -- especially since they have been cleared for operation in the United States, and some can be armed.

They might go after armed groups, I could see that.

I occassionally flip by a police show on TV, and it's such a joke... they arrest someone and go through their house and find a GUN! Oh noes! They own a gun legally and happened to have committed a crime. Sure, some of the time it's illegal, but either way the gun is seized as if it were not theirs and illegal to own.

Seizing the gun doesn't bother me so much, it's the condensation by which they say the person has a gun, as if someone beside a cop having a gun is a crime in itself. Needless to say, the shows disgust me.

I doubt they'll do much against general public who aren't armed or actively protesting. I doubt they will unless this or that element poses a threat to the government in some way, even if that threat is political. So if you walk in a straight-line and are fine with their controls and imposed civil liberties violations, there isn't a problem.

But like, I'll probably never fly because I'm opposed to the TSA. I'm opposed to an unwarranted search and seizure. So for example, if I were in New York and told to turn-out my pockets, I'd tell the cop no and explain it's a bill of rights violation. But like, rather than trying to fight a court battle to the supreme court, it's a lot easier just to never go to New York. :)

I look at it like this. I wont give up my civil rights. Maybe other people are happy to, but I'm keeping mine. If they want them, they'd have to take my rights by force. But the government is careful about who they oppress... they do this stuff in cities where people already live a degraded life-style and are used to not having rights out of fear of their neighbors.

@Razare

They might go after armed groups, I could see that.

And once they do that, they'll proceed to go after unarmed ones...


Robyn C.
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Razare

And once they do that, they'll proceed to go after unarmed ones...


Robyn C.
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!

I agree, but it's a long-term degradation of liberties.

Blowing-up the argument and making it sound threatening in the here and now actually hurts your argument because it turns a lot of practical people off since they don't see it happening now.

Such a degradation of liberties becomes critical when our nation faces a terrible crises. It's in those times that the government will exercise its power to the detriment of the citizens. Remember the Japanese that were confined to camps during WWII?

That's ultimately what the argument needs to focus on to be more convincing. It seems benign to most people in the present, what we have worry about is our future when the trend is taken to it's logical conclusion... even if that conclusion happens 100 years from now. Trying to convince others to worry about the future is difficult though.

@Razare

How do you avoid turning off practical minded people who don't see it happening now while telling them what is likely to happen?


R.C
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Vaan

A government that can do whatever it pleases to it's people is more dangerous than an enemy, and though there are dangerous people in society -- not everybody is a danger.

The government is a government that can (And does) do whatever it pleases and things are working so far ^_^. However the 4th amendment has to do with seisures and searches, not survelliance. The police and others have been following people and tapping phones etc since well before drones, so there is no real difference.

No, the reason this technology is being used is to allow powerful interests including governmental, and corporate to maintain their power.

Fact or speculation? And technology does not maintain a governments power, the people do. Politics is based on how werll you can bullshit people, so the best way to stop crap politics is to get the populus to stop believing thier bullshit ^_^.

There is such a thing -- it's called the 4th Amendment. The problem is that the powers that be don't want to follow it and have figured out every trick in the book it seems to maneuver around it. If they have the military do it, they don't have to follow the 4th Amendment; they could have private-interests do the surveillance and then give that to the government to use (technically the government isn't supposed to hire spies to circumvent the 4th Amendment, but if you argue national security and intelligence, and sources and methods you can get away with it)., the intelligence services aren't supposed to operate domestically, but now there is DHS which effectively is a fusion of local & state level law enforcement, federal law-enforcement, intelligence and military intelligence all whipped together into a smooth velvety mix.

The fact that these drones can operate with a lower-workload, possess greater endurance than manned aircraft, and with automation can require few operators to control massive systems of drones -- this allows for ubiquitous surveillance where government has cameras everywhere and can monitor everything 24/7. This is something a government who respects freedom, privacy, and individual liberty would not do.

You may foolishly believe that this is all about keeping us safe, but you're wrong. Hey, it probably isn't the first time, and probably not the last. And while people can protest this surveillance -- what if they don't know they're being spied on (in this way or some other way)? How could they protest that?

Also, being that drones can be armed, there's a safety risk and the worry that the government could decide to arm them and use them on American citizens. Oh, sure they'll be labeled terrorists, but the definition of terrorism is so conveniently broad and widens every day. How long before protest will constitute low-level terro-- oh wait... that's already happened!

As for arming the drones for domestic purposes would be a waste of time and be the end of a politicians career. It would be more efficient to use special forces or a mercenary to take the person out, which is far more inconspicuous and can be covered up easier than a crater.


And once again it comes back to don't break the law. Unless you are a terrorist or a drug cartel you don't have to worry about it. And even if you do minor offences that would put you right at the bottomn of the list. These drones are for tier 1 offenders, so most people aren't that special (Remember all of this costs money to operate, and they have bigger fish to fry than angry liberals)


We don't have amendments like that here in Australia(At least not at surface level like the amendments are) however

@Vaan

The government is a government that can (And does) do whatever it pleases and things are working so far ^_^.

Actually a lot of people are not happy what's happening lately and with the government asserting the right to kill people it decides are terrorists under secret criteria we aren't allowed to know -- a lot of Americans could be in the crosshairs

However the 4th amendment has to do with seisures and searches, not surveillance.

Actually the Supreme Court has made rulings such as Katz v. United States which effectively stated that the 4th Amendment pertains to privacy rights. Also, it said that it should be a fundamental right to be left alone by government.

The police and others have been following people and tapping phones etc since well before drones

Yeah, but that's supposed to be done with warrant!

there is no real difference.

Yes there is since drones have a lower work-load, can operate autonomously, require less skill to operate, are cheaper, and can persist longer, it makes it easier to use huge numbers of them to perform continuous surveillance compared to manned aircraft generally speaking.


Plus with high tech algorithms that can identify suspicious behavior, plus facial recognition you have a greater ability to track people with the same effort.

Fact or speculation?

Are you kidding me?

As for arming the drones for domestic purposes would be a waste of time and be the end of a politicians career.

Not necessarily -- all they'd have to do is say they were going after terrorists, and the people who don't know better would buy it, and those who do would realize that the government has gone so far out of bounds that little to nothing could be done and most would simply sit in mute horror.


The few who would be willing to challenge the system would either be infiltrated by agents provocateur, or include the right wing who would resort to violence and when that happened the government would use it as a pretext to justify suspending the rule of law.

It would be more efficient to use special forces or a mercenary to take the person out, which is far more inconspicuous and can be covered up easier than a crater.

And maybe that will be done. Plus not all drones are large -- some are the size of humming birds and there are plans to make various drones insect size for surveillance purposes and such a device could be used as an assassination tool.

And once again it comes back to don't break the law. Unless you are a terrorist or a drug cartel you don't have to worry about it.

The government shouldn't be spying on us unless theres a reason to suspect wrongdoing. Additionally, government's have gone after people they simply didn't like even though they were not violent, not criminals, and not terrorists.


Regardless, with the definition of terrorism expanding, eventually any dissent = terrorism




R.C.
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Razare

How do you avoid turning off practical minded people who don't see it happening now while telling them what is likely to happen?

They have to experience it. Perhaps they can gain that experience elsewhere, if for example, one setup a mini-democracy simulation and ran it over the series of a few months and they participated. There would have to be a greed incentive at play.

You could demonstrate first hand, as liberties gradually were removed, the people became oppressed.

Yet other than forcing them to live in a summer camp for a few months, I can't see this being practical.

SJ types need to almost always learn things first hand. Even if something is likely to happen, often they wont care because it's not happening right now to them. First-hand experience is the only way to bring it home, into the here and now.

@Razare

They have to experience it.

By the time they experience it, it's too late to do anything.

Perhaps they can gain that experience elsewhere, if for example, one setup a mini-democracy simulation and ran it over the series of a few months and they participated.

I'd rather not build a complex simulation, I don't have the resources to do so, and I'm opposed to the concept on ethical grounds. As for having them all stay at summer camp for a couple of months, I'd rather not.

SJ types need to almost always learn things first hand.

What types don't need to learn things first hand?


R.C.
I want you all to remember that no matter how I die -- it was murder; if I am tried for some bogus criminal offense -- I didn't do it and, in the event I should mysteriously disappear -- it wasn't voluntary!