On Jul 2, 2012 8:30 AM, "Mike Tibor" <tibor@tibor.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Christopher Howard wrote:
>
> > Hopefully this qualifies as on-topic, but I want to point out a bill
> > that recently was introduced in the House, called the Preserving
> > Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012:
> >
> > https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h5925/show
> >
> > Basically, it is a bill that requires the Feds to get a warrant before
> > they are allowed to spy on citizens with unmanned drones. The basic
> > idea is to pre-emptively prevent the U.S. from turning into a police
> > state, where the government can spy on anyone they wish using
> > low-flying drones.
> >
> > That may sound rather sci-fi, but it really isn't: the technology has
> > received heavy application in the military, as well as some scientific
> > and other civilian uses. It is a fairly easy step to bring them into
> > law enforcement use.
> >
> > So, if that sounds like a concern to you, then you might consider
> > e-mailing Don Young through his Web form
> > (<http://donyoung.house.gov/Contact/>). There is also a Senate version
> > of the bill, I believe.
> > (<
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/06/14/congress-rand-paul-warrants-for-domestic-drone-surveillance.aspx
>)
> >
>
>
> What most people forget when this topic comes up is that airborne drones
> are really only effective when the surveillance target is out in the open.
> Believe it or not, when you're out in the open you have no expectation of
> privacy, and the police need no warrant to photograph you or record your
> conversations. Police routinely plant cameras/microphones in open areas
> to gather evidence during an investigation, so I'm not sure why mounting
> them on a small airborne platform changes anything.
>
> Violation of your privacy can only occur when you're in a place where you
> have a reasonable expectation of privacy--in your home for instance. An
> airborne drone isn't going to make it easier for police to watch you or
> monitor your conversations when you're inside your house. Technology for
> surveilling a target inside a structure from the outside has existed for
> many years now. That kind of technology should be of far more concern then
> the simple mounting of a camera on a little RC helicopter, and I'm not
> sure why it isn't.
>
> Don't get me wrong--I think most tools used by government agencies that
> have the potential for abuse are virtually guaranteed to be abused by
> them, given the opportunity. I'm just having trouble seeing the basis for
> the outrage on this one.
>
> Mike
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>
On top of which, it seems lots of people are building them now. How are
going to control who's taking pictures of what & why?
"Honest Judge, We were just trying to get a handle on the traffic situation
in the area when out of nowhere, Mr Howard..." ;)
www,diydrones.com
Jim G
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Jul 2 19:17:03 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 02 2012 - 19:17:03 AKDT