Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Houston PD now using drones on Americans:
[youtube][/youtube]

Weber State helps develop spy blimbs to spy on Ogden (great use of our public universities isn't it?)
[youtube][/youtube]

Salt Lake City- spy blimbs take to the sky
[youtube][/youtube]

Homeland security blimps in Maine
[youtube][/youtube]

"those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"- Benjamin Franklin

expandos...I too worry about privacy issues...

So, share with us how you would handle this expansion of technology if you were in law enforcement...

Would you ignore technology that can help you better patrol your area of responsibility...that can better follow bad guys...

I agree there is room for misuse that greatly concerns me...

But instead of just throwing up these things...how about offering us some of your thoughts on how this technology can be used...or should it be ignored in the name of privacy???

First off- I appreciate your comment- especially that you didn't belittle me for bringing it up and treated me like a human being, which is refreshing.

The problems I have with this are many.

First and foremost are the numerous personal privacy issues (and I am a person who doesn't commit crimes, but is well aware of Orwell's 1984 and is good at connecting dots).

The Police chief went so far as to say she was "open to a number of different applications". Any remote viewing of Americans is a search- by the definition that you are using a government agency to visually inspect the citizenry.

What if my wife is sunbaithing in the backyard topless? I bet they won't be turning off the camera.

Maybe you feel like you want to have a chicken coop in our backyard (illegal now in many jurisdictions).. they would know.

The unlawful search and seizure amendment the 4th ammendment says that a warrant is needed. This clearly is a violation of the 4th ammendment.

The police were not forthcoming that this program was even on the books- and the public isn't being even asked about it- it's just being thrust on us.

This is definitely a search- a very high powered one- and it sets an extremely bad presedent for future technologies which are now coming online- such as backscatter that can literally see through your walls.

This government has already gone too far with the FISA bill and Patriot Act- they aren't going to stop usurping our rights.

expandspanos wrote:First off- I appreciate your comment- especially that you didn't belittle me for bringing it up and treated me like a human being, which is refreshing.The problems I have with this are many.

Don't get used to it....being treated like a human being is a rarity reserved for an elite few.

expandspanos wrote:First off- I appreciate your comment- especially that you didn't belittle me for bringing it up and treated me like a human being, which is refreshing.

The problems I have with this are many.

First and foremost are the numerous personal privacy issues (and I am a person who doesn't commit crimes, but is well aware of Orwell's 1984 and is good at connecting dots).

The Police chief went so far as to say she was "open to a number of different applications". Any remote viewing of Americans is a search- by the definition that you are using a government agency to visually inspect the citizenry.

What if my wife is sunbaithing in the backyard topless? I bet they won't be turning off the camera.

Maybe you feel like you want to have a chicken coop in our backyard (illegal now in many jurisdictions).. they would know.

The unlawful search and seizure amendment the 4th ammendment says that a warrant is needed. This clearly is a violation of the 4th ammendment.

The police were not forthcoming that this program was even on the books- and the public isn't being even asked about it- it's just being thrust on us.

This is definitely a search- a very high powered one- and it sets an extremely bad presedent for future technologies which are now coming online- such as backscatter that can literally see through your walls.

This government has already gone too far with the FISA bill and Patriot Act- they aren't going to stop usurping our rights.

OK, but you totally ignored my question....let's try again...

Should the police totally ignore advances in technology...technology that can be abused, but can also provide them with a serious advantage over the bad guys???

Do you toss out all good for some potential bad?

Instead of railing against, let's discuss a way to use it for good...

Or should police work stop advancing in the 1970's???

If any of the bad compromised our liberties, then yes, toss it away.

This is definitely a violation of the 4th ammendment.

There are other examples of where technology is good and can help law enforcement, such as the use of dashboard cameras to record what actually happens when someone is pulled over.

Eyes in the sky cross the line clearly.. the founding fathers would really not be down.

Are you for grounding police helicopters/airplanes?

expandspanos wrote:If any of the bad compromised our liberties, then yes, toss it away.

This is definitely a violation of the 4th ammendment.

There are other examples of where technology is good and can help law enforcement, such as the use of dashboard cameras to record what actually happens when someone is pulled over.

Eyes in the sky cross the line clearly.. the founding fathers would really not be down.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but the reality is that if a capability exists, it will be used.

It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

Col Hogan wrote:Are you for grounding police helicopters/airplanes?

Side wager he won't attempt to address this...

...kinda like resolving the mystery of who's buried in Grant's Tomb.

WhenI worked for the Charleston Police Department, we bought a UAV. The Chief wanted to use it to help with foot/vehicle pursuits so we could find the bad guys who were hiding in backyards, etc. The main reason for this is because a drone is exponentially cheaper than a helicopter, and much safer for the public as well (a drone crashing in your yard is better than a helicopter crashing in your yard).


Since I left, I think they have fitted it with a high-powered microwave and are using it to irradiate the brains of people who post conspiracy theories on Internet football message boards.

CID1990 wrote:WhenI worked for the Charleston Police Department, we bought a UAV. The Chief wanted to use it to help with foot/vehicle pursuits so we could find the bad guys who were hiding in backyards, etc. The main reason for this is because a drone is exponentially cheaper than a helicopter, and much safer for the public as well (a drone crashing in your yard is better than a helicopter crashing in your yard).


Since I left, I think they have fitted it with a high-powered microwave and are using it to irradiate the brains of people who post conspiracy theories on Internet football message boards.

But, wearing tinfoil hats and lining your celing and windows with foil prevent that...right?

grizzaholic wrote:

CID1990 wrote:WhenI worked for the Charleston Police Department, we bought a UAV. The Chief wanted to use it to help with foot/vehicle pursuits so we could find the bad guys who were hiding in backyards, etc. The main reason for this is because a drone is exponentially cheaper than a helicopter, and much safer for the public as well (a drone crashing in your yard is better than a helicopter crashing in your yard).


Since I left, I think they have fitted it with a high-powered microwave and are using it to irradiate the brains of people who post conspiracy theories on Internet football message boards.

But, wearing tinfoil hats and lining your celing and windows with foil prevent that...right?

That's what we want you to think, yes.

grizzaholic wrote:

CID1990 wrote:WhenI worked for the Charleston Police Department, we bought a UAV. The Chief wanted to use it to help with foot/vehicle pursuits so we could find the bad guys who were hiding in backyards, etc. The main reason for this is because a drone is exponentially cheaper than a helicopter, and much safer for the public as well (a drone crashing in your yard is better than a helicopter crashing in your yard).


Since I left, I think they have fitted it with a high-powered microwave and are using it to irradiate the brains of people who post conspiracy theories on Internet football message boards.

But, wearing tinfoil hats and lining your celing and windows with foil prevent that...right?

Unfortunately, they don't use tin any more, the hats are aluminum foil and I think the aluminum fries people brains.

BlueHen86 wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
But, wearing tinfoil hats and lining your celing and windows with foil prevent that...right?

Unfortunately, they don't use tin any more, the hats are aluminum foil and I think the aluminum fries people brains.

Up here in the STICKS we use TIN.

My father in law is a recently retired vice president for Alcoa.

Saying "tin foil" causes serious family discussions.