Go figure, the Black Helicopter guys were right

Interesting, I was just about to bring the NDAA up.  I have been at odds with this since the proposed changes were stated, and the president decided not to use his veto power.  

I lost count of the "if's" and "when's" in the story. 

I find it odd that in US v Jones, had Law Enforcement just followed him, instead of using a GSP, it would have stood up in court. Personally I do not agree witht he Supreme Court on that call.

I am far more worried about the info Google, Visa,  and the like collect on me. Than I am the Government. 

Just my two cents.

Georges St-Pierre? I bet he could do some freelance surveillance.

I'd say this pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-6-2012/game-of-drones

Oh, and I don't know if the Daily Show website bleeps the segments the same as when they are broadcast.  So, it may not be SFW if your workplace is lame like that.

Thanks a lot Scudrunner.  I just blew about an hour of my day watching the vids over there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

If the 4th ammendment violation is not enough...This sentence jumped up and caught my attention:And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy  military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is  deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons.”

The

Posse Comitatus

Act of 1878

 SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ
any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise,
for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such
circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by
the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act
shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any
troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the
provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on
conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars
or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

What part of this use of drones is legal?

"...sounds like helicopters. UN helicopters."--Dale

But seriously, ya'll know we've had some pretty good satellites up there for a long time, don't you? And ANY military aircraft can fly over in our air space any time they want, right? I don't get the problem with the drones.

I don't know that the problem is with the drones specifically, but with how they're being used. Military aircraft have historically not been used on U.S. soil, against U.S. citizens and legal residents (at least that I'm aware of), whereas .gov now is openly stating that they'll be used for what amounts to spying on it's own people. Yes, it has happened before through other means, but now the Powers That Be are being so brazen as to talk about it as though it's not a big deal. And it isn't a big deal because most Americans are accepting it.

I find that I have to very strongly agree with the sentiment of 

...because we have only the illusion of security, but most people are perfectly satisfied with that. We, as a collective entity, are accepting "freedom from" over "freedom to" in that America wants to be free from perceived threats and free from worry, and will accept losing the freedoms to do what we want (so long as what we want is not a threat to anyone else!) in order to achieve the illusion of security.

Where I work I see it constantly: politicians misquote statistics to use on the news and say "look at how great I am; look at what agency X has achieved under my reign", when the truth is that nothing has changed. It's all about illusions. We often talk about how the Emperor has no clothes, but for frack's sake, don't let the public know!

Sorry, I think I went on a little bit of a tangent there. I thought I was staying on-topic, but maybe I didn't. I apologize.

Amen. I felt this opinion piece really presented no facts in regards to what pictures are used for. My "" alarm kept going off and off.

The style of writing seems to stir up the pot for conspiracy theorists and only those with an interest in conspiracy-type articles. That's what I felt after reading this to the end.

I honestly have no care of people taking pictures of my house. I'd be flattered, honestly. What will it be used for? I am a single, middle class white male with no extremist views on anything ( except cycling :p ). What is "the government" going to use it for? Plus, there's this thing on the top of my house called a roof. Nobody can see in or out of it.

My biggest problem is that if "the government,"  depending on which part of the government your daily concern is with, can drive by, in, around, or near your property, albeit public land, and can observe whatever they feel with their own eyes, what's the difference with pictures? Someone is still viewing your prized property

I agree there's a lot of slippery slope type stuff in the article, but I'd say my biggest hang up is the fact that the military is doing this.  In our society law enforcement can sit on the road and look at my property, but the US Air Force can not, at least not in an official capacity.

I know this is a hypothetical, but what happens if they decide to use armed drones on US soil?  I know this is a "what if" question, but a police officer can watch my property and he is armed, so if he see's something happening on my property he can intervene with deadly force if necessary.  So what's the difference between that and a USAF drone doing the same thing?

Statutory authority. Law enforcement is authorized, by law, to intervene whereas the military is not. Granted, Congress could create an amendment that would allow the military enforce laws, but for now that hasn't happened.

A good example (I think, but I could be wrong) is how the National Guard soldiers have worked with law enforcement (Border Patrol, DEA), but could only affect an arrest under specific circumstances, with specific authorization, and when deputized by the law enforcement personnel, who were present. When the NG works with Border Patrol, they can't do anything related to enforcing laws, they may only engage in surveillence activities. If confronted, they are supposed to retreat and call for law enforcement back-up. (deadly force situations are a little different, but they are very restricted).

As for there being any kind of real difference, there isn't a huge one. It's still representatives of the government using deadly force to stop a threat, but the legal difference is really big.

So I haven't seen any of this in the news lately but there is more goings on with the NDAA. This is incredible. How can this have passed with "broad bipartisan" support?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/obama-appeals-ndaa-detention-law

So are you OK with local law enforcement flying drones for the same purpose?

To me this is another step towards making our country a policed state. 

Why does it matter that it is an unmanned drone?

Wouldn't you be just as worried if this guy was outside your house?

Police officer on beat patrol walks by your house in 1920 and sees 10 marijuana plants through a window from a public street

Police officer drives by in a car shining a flashlight in your window in 1950 and sees 10 marijuana plants through a window from a public street.

Police officer flies in a helicopter in 1970 in public airspace over your house and sees 10 marijuana plants growing in the backyard.

Police officer in 2012 watches a screen as remote controlled drone flies over your house in public airspace recording 10 marijuana plants growing in the backyard.

They've always been watching.  Only difference is how they do it.