Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance
thehill.com
thehill.com
• using a drone to patrol the freeway looking for drunk drivers (well, technically they could use a drone to look but they would not be able to send a ground officer to cite the drunk driver),
• using a drone to track the getaway car from a bank robbery,
• searching for a child who has been taken without authorization by a non-custodial parent.
In the first example, a drone COULD be used to patrol the freeway looking for disabled cars or accidents, but if any criminal activity were observed during such patrols the evidence from the drone could not be used against the criminals.
This is typical Rand Paul--it is designed to sound good and make it look like he is looked out for The People on some important issue, but the bill is written to be so overly broad that it won't have much chance of actually passing--which I suspect is fine with Paul.
Another example of that was an amendment he tried that would have made it so that former Congressmen who become lobbyists lose their benefits. Sounds like a good idea, right? Of course it does--but then when you check the details you find that "lobbyist" is defined so broadly as to include anyone who gets money from the Federal government or gets money by working for someone who gets money from the Federal government.
For instance, if a former Congressman is a physician, and after leaving Congress goes to work at a rural medical clinic--and that clinic accepts payments from Medicare, that physician would be a lobbyist under Rand Paul's amendment and would lose his benefits.
Of course that amendment went nowhere, but now Paul can paint himself if he wishes as a guy who tried to fight the corrupting influence of former Congressman becoming lobbyists.
That is going to prevent the bill from passing. If they use the "protect the children" argument
Rand Paul gets it.
Military equipment is any equipment that is predominantly used by the military and not so much by anybody else.
Drones are primarily used by the military. They are military equipment. If they start getting used by local police forces left and right, well, they would no longer be military equipment. And that would be unfortunate.
"Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms".
So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell:
There is a nationwide problem of police forces using tanks as part of SWAT operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is a real problem and worth talking about.
But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military.
There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling.
You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let this point go.
PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces (aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares to a howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1 which is designed to be far enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to protect it's crew.
The FBI is actively working on lobbying for backdoors into every major communications service, including the social networks.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-seeks-internet-...
They are also using GPS to spy on random people of interest without warrants.
http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/253374/3000-war...
In my opinion, tracking someone automatically (either via GPS or drone), as opposed to having an actual person follow them, is sufficiently different in terms of cost that it becomes a qualitatively different phenomenon.
> The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.
It doesn't ban drones. It bans their use for police surveillance without a warrant based on probable cause. A lot of people seem to be confused about this issue.
Almost all of the equipment used by police today was once military equipment. Some of it still is.
It lowers the technical barrier for surveillance of a large population significantly. Therefore, that's what we call a groundbreaking technology.
that's what's different.
"How is the Internet fundamentally different than the telegraph? " "How is a ITBM different from artillery?" "How is the car different from a carriage?"
You can use that kind of question for every technological advances. Obviously every major step changes behaviors significantly.
So what?
>Because a helicopter costs millions of dollars.
Drones that provide enough persistence for surveillance aren't anywhere near that cheap. DHS paid $180m for ten of them, making them far more expensive than the kind of helicopters police departments use.
>A helicopter must be flown by a person. Drones can be automated.
Sort of. The FAA is still going to require an operator in case there's some kind of air traffic situation. And someone still has to sort through whatever data the drone is providing, something that isn't automated.
>Are you starting to get the picture? 1 helicopter = 100 drones. Go read 1981 by Orwell. You'll begin to understand the concept of something being Orwellian.
Yeah, I get the picture. This is mostly hyperventilating. The statement you can buy and operate 100 drones for the cost of one helicopter displays a complete disconnect from reality. You need to do a little reading up on what kinds of capabilities drones offer at what cost.
Errr ... those are Predators. Literally the military model. You know, the ones that can shoot missiles and stuff.
Nobody is talking about that.
I can stick a battery powered WiFi cam on a model airplane and get remote surveillance that doesn't cost 18 million. This is the same issue as plastering cameras at every intersection.
Guess what? My town just did that. They have cameras on almost every intersection. That's sick.
Wake up.
Sure, you can. And you'll get what you pay for in terms of useful images. Far from your Orwellian fantasy, your little plane will only be in the sky for a few minutes, meaning you can't use it for surveillance.
>Guess what? My town just did that. They have cameras on almost every intersection. That's sick.
That's a totally different issue, and one on which we agree. What they've done in the UK is a travesty, and I don't want to see it where I live.
>Wake up.
Oh, I see. The only reason I wouldn't agree with you is because I'm sleeping. Idiot.
I bet Bonnie and Clyde wish that the Police where banned from having "Milatery weapons" as it was the full auto BAR's that did for them back in the 30's
There are some exceptions: border patrol to combat illegal immigration and illegal importation of controlled substances, specific terrorist threats identified by homeland security from specific organizations or individuals, and exigent circumstances. That last basically means there is a life in imminent danger and the drone is operated by a law enforcement party, which is defined as a party that is paid by the Federal government to investigate or prosecute crimes against the United States.
So, if a traffic monitoring drone operated by local police saw a hit and run, they could not use the drone to track the hit and run driver. The exigent circumstances exception would not apply because (1) there is no imminent danger to life, and (2) even if there was local police may not be a law enforcement party, as that is limited to parties that deal with crimes against the United States, not local and state crimes.
Or if a drone operated by NOAA for weather research spotted a crime in progress where someone was in imminent danger of being killed, and the NOAA drone operators then used the drone to monitor this and gather evidence, they would be in violation of the law and the evidence would be inadmissible. The exigent circumstances exception would not apply because NOAA is not a law enforcement party.
There are about 500 comments on this on Reddit, and almost all of them indicate people think this is about stopping the government from sending drones over your backyard to spy on you.
Legislation to do that would be a good thing. This is not that legislation.
There you go.
If this thing ever passes, it is probably going to be so much watered down, that you probably can fill a noise complaint with your local police station in the case a drone is hovering less than an inch over your head.
I know we Eastern Europeans are very cynical but I can tell you communism survived for so long because of reasoning like this.
They could: * Find meth labs without waiting for evidence that the meth was being brewed in the residence, which could cost lives. * FIND children taken without authorization by a non-custodial parent. * Collect tax cheat information from users' computers before waiting for them to slip up and break specific IRS auditing rules. * Detect spousal abuse without waiting for the spouse to show up in an emergency room.
I mean, the list of ways that we could improve law enforcement is infinite if we would just give the State infinite power.
Don't you see anything wrong with that argument?
Liberties won against government are so unbelievably hard fought. Most of the time those gains involve bloodshed. Why would we be so quick to give away any liberties whatsoever without tarring and feathering the politician/bureaucrat proposing the idea?
Paul's bill would ban the use of such evidence, unless the biologist had a warrant to track the body dumper.
What's special about drones here? If that biologist was not using a drone, but was instead tracking the tagged animal visually from a distance with binoculars, and happened to witness the body dumping, should that also not be allowed in court?
Yeah, whatever. I would be fine if a politician came back to us later with a revised bill that includes very specific exceptions for situations like the one your example described and maybe something to allow for keeping images taken of aliens from outer space.
For now, though, the liberty we're giving away 99.9999% of the time is our right to prevent illegal search and seizure plus we're giving away our implied rights to privacy. No thanks. Domestic drones should be shut down forcefully until we as a society think through the ramifications (which we obviously haven't because they're being allowed by default).
> What's special about drones here?
If you can answer the question of why the Govt wants to use the drones in the first place, you have my answer to why that's a bad thing.
Some obvious places state and local governments will want to use drones:
• Search and rescue. For the cost of one manned aircraft, a whole fleet of drones could be deployed, allowing for a wider search.
• Fire monitoring. A park ranger who spots a remote fire could check it out much faster with a drone than on foot or horseback or ATV.
• Traffic monitoring and crowd safety monitoring during high turnout events. For instance, major sporting events, or the informal large street celebrations that happen when the home team wins a championship.
• Damage assessment after natural disasters or severe weather. A fleet of small drone helicopters could check power lines after a severe wind storm to find places where trees or branches have fallen into lines, for example.
• After a snow storm, a school could send a drone to fly over the school bus routes to determine if they appear safe to send out the school buses, or if school needs to be cancelled.
So how are these bad things?
There's always a very narrow gap between something that is useful and something that causes harm. Without any clear provision, and by blinding trusting government, you easily end up with crowd controlling policies. The State is like Sauron's Ring: it wants Power.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
I prefer to consider the totality of what granting this extra power to the government would entail... and it's not all search and rescue.
[1] http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/11/epa-power-grab-to-regu...
The reality is, 'tzs started this thread by pointing out why Senator Paul's bill was flawed as a matter of policy: it precludes obviously legitimate uses of remote-controlled aerial devices, which are obviously going to be a commonplace technology in 10-15 years and are used with little regulatory drama by private industry today.
Naturally, the Libertarian Paladins of the Comment Thread want to turn 'tzs workmanlike point --- which, unlike the glittering pronouncement of principals favored by your fellow Paladins, actually involved reading the bill --- into a discussion of drones used to shoot hellfire missiles down the chimneys of anyone who would write an unfavorable comment on a message board about Romney or Obama.
But that's not the discussion 'tzs invited. He simply said: "this is a poorly written bill, so much so that it is obviously not going to get passed, so obviously that Senator Paul had to have either known that or be incompetent, and let's stipulate that he's not incompetent".
Can you address your comment to his actual point, rather than conjuring up some authoritarian demon that shoots drones armed with Wikileaks-seeking missles out of its butt? Because 'tzs is not that demon.
Controlling drones is a lot bigger of a deal in the surveillance area than just controlling bit torrent is to file sharing. There are a lot of almost-as-good alternatives to bit torrent. Cheap arial surveillance only has drones.
I will happily vote with you to support politicians who want to curtail unwarranted surveillance during upcoming elections; but I will take what I can get with this anti-drone legislation for now.
And that'll just make the inevitable abuse get swept under the rug.
You should also call your Members of Congress and Senators. Funny that congress doesn't have a automated directory. So I built callingcongress.org for this exact purpose, it's dial by zip.
You would be surprised how far a phone call, email, fax, and even a letter go. Especially if enough people tie up phone/fax lines etc.
Turning away brown people from our shores and then slaughtering them in other countries is my God-given right as an American.
The recent panic around unmanned surveillance seems odd to me given the excellent quality of imagery from low-orbit satellites that have been around for much longer.
Not every local police dept. is going to have on-demand access to a LEO satellite for tracking purposes. These bulky UAVs are the tip of the iceberg. What happens when police can have $20 robotic hummingbirds with 300ft audio/visual range?
The past 40 years have shown the government will always do their best to breach privacy rights to meet their (sometimes noble) ends. Their passion needs to be countered by privacy protections, sad as it may seem.
I don't know about this bill (haven't read it), but something like this needs to come along to protect the people from the government.
But they didn't. They've been silent. Where's the legislation to repeal the PATRIOT ACT? I didn't see any, but instead its been expanded and extended.
Why isn't [pick-your-favorite-politician] vowing to take a stand against these evil things?
I wish Rand doing this were not at all news because there were 200+ people on capital hill raising similar issues and taking a stand against violations of people's rights.
Who are these "Many" and what meds are they on? These people are suggesting that if Romney wins in 2012 and doesn't choose Rand Paul as VP then Rand Paul is going to run against him in 2016... and be a serious threat?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/meeting-rand-paul-mitt-r...
And shortly after meeting Rand said that it would be an honor to be Romney's VP if chosen.
And here is CBS saying that he's strongly expected to consider running in 2016 or 2020:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57449843-503544/rand-...
It's pretty clear that the only way Rand will definitely not run in 2016 is if he is Romney's VP nomination. And right now Rand is the only Republican whose actively positioning himself for 2016 on a near daily basis, so he is kind of Romney's biggest 2016 competitor by default. I don't have a specific source for the actual claim, but I've definitely seen it repeated by many people across the blogosphere.
If Romney loses then one Paul or the other will be up on the stage in 2016, getting 9% of the vote and eventually losing to Chris Christie (or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal). If Romney is President in 2016 then a primary challenge from Rand Paul is no threat whatsoever.
The only way the Pauls could threaten Romney is to run as a third party candidate and siphon off enough of the vote to ensure a Democrat win. I don't think they'll do that though.
They don't actually have to do that though, they only need enough support to credibly threaten it. And since right now Ron is polling almost equal to Obama in a head to head race, the threat is certainly real.
I think you make a mistake if you perceive that Rand == Ron.
Rand is a lot more politically savvy than his dad. Have you ever seen the clips of where Ron Paul appeared on the old Morton Downey Jr. show screaming and yelling at audience members? Rand would never let himself appear as that much of a kook.
Plus, Ron Paul was always a lone voice in the wilderness. Although I think there was a lot to what he was saying, he had no hope of accomplishing any type of sea change. In contrast, Rand Paul is riding a wave of anti-government sentiment that may actually produce real legislation or put someone in the Whitehouse.
Ron Paul is already too old for it. McCain lost 2008 largely based on his age. Ron Paul is older than McCain. Wikipedia says that Reagan was the oldest and he was 69 upon entering office. Paul is 76.
This year's running, to me, smells entirely of a publicity stunt for his son.
It's really hard to answer the inevitable question of "Why did you introduce a bill in June that is directly opposed to Governor Romney's position on drone security?"
That is, assuming (which I think is safe to do) that Romney is in favor of these drones.
It bothers me that there is such a fear around drones. Please remember that many people would like to use them for far less nefarious purposes - real estate photography, farming, etc.
So, the political position seems to be that its ok for spying, but not ok for mapping farmland or photography.
Otherwise companies (and people?) are allowed to use drones.
The fear is that drone surveillance could become sufficiently cheap that the police could have a constant fleet of drones circling over the city and capable of looking at anything at a moment's notice.
Great now police will have to invent more terrorists to do their jobs as efficiently as allowed by modern technology.
> t would prohibit evidence collected with warrantless drone surveillance from being used as evidence in court
That might lead one to funny case one day when they will have to let murder loose because there is no evidence except footage from police drone accidentally passing by. Everyone will forget about OJ.