"The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020."

"The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation's skies by 2020."

At least half that number are already among the DR's non-yellow dog population.

Seriously, is your inability to actually address the topic of the thread due to laziness, stupidity, or both?

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-01-09 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

licensing of commercial drones by 2015.

Commerical drones? Private spying?

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 658: FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

Congress allows the use of drones over America

The White House is preparing for an unprecedented move which will violate the basic rights of American citizens. President Obama is expected to sign the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act which would allow the government agencies and private companies to use surveillance drones in American airspace. The US military and intelligence have a huge experience of using the unmanned drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and other zones of military conflicts. But it is the first time when the US government decided to use drones for spying on its own citizens.

However it is hard to believe that civil rights groups would manage to stop the government from using such an effective instrument of controlling its citizens. According to the estimates 30,000 drones could be in the nation's airspace by 2020. And it means that Americans should say goodbye to the very idea of privacy

Creeping totalitarianism...coming soon to your neighborhood. It'll complement the creepy "neighborhood watch" signs and the annoying busybodies peeking through their curtains.

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-08 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag

A lot of republicans voting for it. If I were the president, I would not sign this bill.

Although if I were the president I would not have signed the NDAA bill either.

PCon is a Voice of Russia fan?

Who knew?

And the Moonie Times, rofl.

and private companies to use surveillance drones in American airspace

Amazing the silence here.

"The FAA Reauthorization Act"

Boehner is a Commie?

The Rethug House wants to spy on Americans? (OK, well, I can believe that one)

Wanna mock Time too?

Play "Left/Right" games at your own risk.

We shouldn’t, however, ignore the implications of letting drones into airspace that was previously off-limits. While the military and local police forces have long been able to use UAVs in operations on U.S. soil, the prospect of commercial and privately owned drones presents plenty of new questions.

First, there’s the issue of privacy. Rigging a cheap drone with a video camera was no problem for an Occupy protestor; how hard would it be for someone with deeper pockets to finance a drone with even more powerful surveillance equipment to monitor, well, who knows what? How will we know what purposes any private citizen has for deploying a drone overhead?

Then there are the corporations. Forbes points out that companies like Google could ditch their Street View cars and start deploying advanced, autonomous drones to roam the country for incredibly thorough mapping. If the idea of fleets of corporate-owned drones monitoring us from above doesn’t scare you, then you are a much less paranoid person than I.

"The Rethug House wants to spy on Americans?"

If Obama signs it, it means Obama wants to spy on Americans.

I got a drone for Christmas. After my dog caught it mid-flight it didn't fly very well.

If Obama signs it, it means Obama wants to spy on Americans.
#15 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah, but he won't want to as badly as the GOP would, so it's all okay. Right?

TIME's article doesn't sound like a pre-teen girl with her first zit the way the Moonie Times does.

There will certainly be problems integrating new tech into societal and legal norms, there always are. And new regulations to protect citizen's rights.

But once the tech is out of the bag, you can't just stuff it back in and pretend it doesn't exist.

Granted there are plenty of issues such as privacy and responsibility for crashes that will have to be addressed, but I'm not sure what the other choice is.

On the bright side, the Bill does incorporate the Passenger's Bill of Rights.

Interesting vote. Split along party lines.

Them "limited" government teaturds voted for it I see.

"but I'm not sure what the other choice is."

The other choice is a bill banning the use of drones without a search warrant. A president who cared about civil liberties would have already proposed it.

If Obama signs it, it means Obama wants to spy on Americans.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2012-02-08 11:06 AM

Isn't it wonderful?

-The other choice is a bill banning the use of drones without a search warrant.

Do we know that is not in the works?

A president who cared about civil liberties would have already proposed it.
#20 | Posted by nullifidian

I guess he figures with the GOP field the way it is that he has nothing to lose. It's not like the left is going anywhere.

The new Thunderbirds:

Isn't it wonderful?

#21 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2012-02-08 11:24 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Finally bi-partisanship.

Two weeks I attended a breakfast with our local House Rep and Pete Sessions (Head of National Republican Congressional Committee). We had had a lot of local anger over the NDAA Act and someone brought it up and in a somewhat respectful manor Sessions got worked over. I can say that there are a lot of Republicans who don't get it, Pete Sessions is one. I am of the opinion that Republicans dam well knew that indefinite detention was in that bill and that they signed off on the use of drones. A lot of us are coming to terms that we need to defeat the republican party before we can defeat the democrat party.

The other choice is a bill banning the use of drones without a search warrant. A president who cared about civil liberties would have already proposed it.
#20 | Posted by nullifidian

A search warrant for NYC? A little open ended? I can't believe that this administration and this congress has made me side with the ACLU several times this year. Soon it will be raining frogs.

I am of the opinion that Republicans dam well knew that indefinite detention was in that bill and that they signed off on the use of drones.

#26 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-02-08 11:38 AM

He's earned my vote for the forseeable future.

*Grassley (R-IA) can go fuck himself for the forseeable future.

The Rethug House wants to spy on Americans

Let me know when they sign the bill into law.

Honestly, I can't wait to see your excuse for why Obama was "forced to" sign it.

Do we know that is not in the works?

Find it and post a link instead of guessing. What we do know is that this bill IS in the works, as much as you'd like to pretend it isn't.

The Drone as Privacy Catalyst

The bottom line is: domestic drones are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power â€" like all government power â€" needs to be subject to checks and balances. We hope that Congress will carefully consider the privacy implications that this technology can lead to.

"We hope that Congress will carefully consider the privacy implications that this technology can lead to."

well, we have to work with the congress we have, not the one we want.

what's the approval rating for congress these days?

and we "hope" THIS congress will carefully consider the privacy implications?????

good luck with that.

and of course people need to make sure that there are.

Of course there need to be checks and balances, and of course people make sure that there are.
#32 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-08 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag: Pollyanna, of course.

There is no point to this. Commercial drone use is another back door our government will use to get around laws like sending people to other countries so we can say WE didn't torture anyone

A thread like this illustrates where corky separates himself from most of his leftist brethren.

You'll notice he is going at this almost by himself. Even when he knows the dems voted party line against this.

Honestly, I can't wait to see your excuse for why Obama was "forced to" sign it.

oh, he'll have one.

Eberly,
The rest are waiting for the Press Secretarty to tell them how to retort it.

Kanrei,

corky is hitting his "refresh" button every 30 seconds on the Huff post page so they can help him out too.

Gee, Eb... I even linked the layman's version of the Stanford Law Review article, just so yuou might get it, too.

This tech exists and will be used. Whether it is used wisely and constitutionally depends more on how it used rather than how knee-jerk reactors from either side can play the, "who's the most cynical anti-government drone" game.

It is interesting that Corky on one hand says the people will keep this in check, then mocks those trying to do so.

Can't wait til KBR starts flying drones because it is cheaper for cities to outsource police work to private companies. Robocop anyone?

Keepiing it in check and denying the reality of it's eventual use are two different things.

-Flag: Pollyanna, of course

If you have a retort to my comment on another thread, do feel free to use it there.

I even linked the layman's version of the Stanford Law Review article, just so yuou might get it, too.

thanks. your self-imposed intellect is noted...... and laughed at, again.

play the, "who's the most cynical anti-government drone" game.

that won't be me. I didn't blow a gasket over FOIA and I won't now. In any case, you're one the largest "knee jerk reactors" to most of what happened between 2000 - 2008. But for some odd reason, you've softened when you read stories like this now.

the unauthorized phone taps? wow, you blew all your gaskets on that one.

but now?

lemme guess.....you think this goes unnoticed, don't you?

-the unauthorized phone taps? wow, you blew all your gaskets on that one

The paparazzi again. I thought they quit tailing me.

It is a simple choice corky, you can discuss this or play the part of danforth in a SOPA thread. Your comments thus far have not added to the conversation, but has done a great job of attacking posts, sources, and people.

Pity. You would be a great asset to the discussion regardless of the side you are on.

Gee, I'm sorry, K. I never knew you made the rules here.

And too bad the articles by the Director for Privacy and Robotics, Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society didn't add to the conversation.

Since they presented a different view than yours, one can only suppose.

I don't make rules here. Seems you would rather be irrelevant. Your choice.

Irrelvant to you?

That doesn't sound all that bad.

But please, retort the premise of the Stanford Director' article on this subject for me, just so I'll know how wrong he is, and why.

Retread it corky as he sides with us. He just hopes laws like this will motivate Pete to stop laws like this. Nice try though.

Pete is people.

-Retread it corky

lol.

He sides with the reality that this tech is not going away and he predicts a scenario in which it actually aides in updating antiquated privacy laws which might not have been revisited without this tech advance.

You "retread" it.

A lot of republicans voting for it. If I were the president, I would not sign this bill.

Although if I were the president I would not have signed the NDAA bill either.

#8 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

If you were president I would set myself on fire like those Tibetan monks do in protest.

Read to the bottom corky. Read the whole thing. Not gonna fight this with you as the link is there for all to read.

The article titles are:

The Drone as Privacy Catalyst

Why Drones Could End up Being Good for Privacy Law

He sides with the reality that this tech is not going away and he predicts a scenario in which it actually aides in updating antiquated privacy laws which might not have been revisited without this tech advance.

So you read headlines? Try reading the words beneath it.

Drones as privacy catalyst is saying that the current drone laws should act as a catalyst to motivate privacy concerned people to act now. Mead the article corky. It is quite good.

Mead is read. Still can't use the iPad keyboard well.

From Corky's link:

It is for this reason that I believe drones could end up being good for privacy law. The backlash against their use could unravel long-standing doctrinal presumptions against privacy in public, supporting a mosaic theory of privacy such as that on appeal to the Supreme Court from the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Jones. Moreover, it could cut against the argument that people have no privacy interest in contraband or that there has been no privacy violation as long as a person does not see anything s/he should not. These would become itchy-shirt arguments, no longer feeling quite right.

This 'backlash' will be against all who pin their names to this legislation, including the Republican congress, and the President should he sign it as expected.

Well, assuming there are enough informed individuals to make a significant backlash. Many still hold on to the notion that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

-Drones as privacy catalyst is saying that the current drone laws should act as a catalyst to motivate privacy concerned people to act now

Which is what I agreed with originally, pointing out that the tech exists and should be used with adequate checks and balances per teh ACLU article I also posted while not contributing to the conversation (snark).

What you said was:

There is no point to this. Commercial drone use is another back door our government will use to get around laws like sending people to other countries so we can say WE didn't torture anyone

#36 | Posted by kanrei

Which seems to indicate you think the tech should not be used at all in this country, not that you think it should be used carefully.

-So basically Kanrei is right to be concerned about this law

Yes he is, and so was I.

I just accept that the tech will eventually be used and we need to make sure it is well regulated.

K seems to think it shouldn't or won't be used at all.

I just accept that the tech will eventually be used and we need to make sure it is well regulated.

K seems to think it shouldn't or won't be used at all.

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-08 01:22 PM

I have feeling privacy concerns are going to come 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th...

According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use. -- why it has bi-partisan support right there.

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress

So glad the teabagger House took the time to read the Constitution on the floor at the beginning of their term.

According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use. -- why it has bi-partisan support right there.

#62 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

hmmmm maybe I can start an anti-drone drone company...little drones that shoot down drones and then self destruct.

hmmmm maybe I can start an anti-drone drone company...little drones that shoot down drones and then self destruct.

#64 | Posted by donnerboy at 2012-02-08 01:43 PM

Most likey the truth on why the votes cam down the way they did

Of course there need to be checks and balances, and of course people make sure that there are.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-08 11:59 AM | Reply |
hilarious and sad at the same time.

The bottom line is: domestic drones are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power "like all government power€" needs to be subject to checks and balances. We hope that Congress will carefully consider the privacy implications that this technology can lead to.
www.aclu.org

#67 | POSTED BY KERSH AT 2012-02-08 10:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG: obnoxious and illiterate at the same time

Maybe these drones will only violate the rights of the citizens that disagree with me?

Thank God Obama was a constitutional law professor so he of course would not sign this into law with out protecting the American people rights of privacy we all know the congress are full of shit for brains who do not care about constitutional rights but of course Obama cares like he refused to sign the NDAA bill, and when it came to reauthorized some of the worst elements of the patriot act he stood firm and steady saying NO
I will protect the American people from The Tyranny of Excessive invasion
of government probing with out a warrant.

oh wait a second I forgot to take my medication tonight never mind

Privacy is increasingly becoming a commodity that only the very rich and powerful can afford.

That said, what's the big whoop?

There are already cameras everywhere these days at ground level and spy satellites in orbit that can look over your shoulder and read your newspaper.

Police now have helicopters with infrared capability to hunt criminals at night.

Some phones can be used to track individuals by law authorities with full immunity to the telecoms.

Some cars have black boxes on them recording what you are doing.

Your internet viewing history in being logged somewhere.

This is just another layer of that.

Agreed that redefining privacy in today's high tech age will be a major issue in days to come but going all chicken little on this news is a little much considering where we are right now.

Be Well.

Obviously the primary focus of these domestic drones will initially be the Mexican border.

Anyone got a problem with that?

Be Well.

#72 | Posted by dethspud

Spud thinks Drones are cool as long as the DEA doesn't fly them over Canada to kill off all the Canadian wacky weed.

Spud thinks Drones are cool as long as the DEA doesn't fly them over Canada to kill off all the Canadian wacky weed.

Spud thinks the second most obvious place for these drones after the US-Mexican border is the US-Canada border.

Spud thinks increased surveillance is to a certain degree inevitable and that people need to pick their battles carefully here.

Spud also thinks pot should be legal, of course.

Be Well.

but going all chicken little on this news is a little much considering where we are right now.
Be Well.

#71 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD AT 2012-02-09 04:53 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Slurp.....slurp.....says the Obama ball licker

"The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation's skies by 2020."

At least half that number are already among the DR's non-yellow dog population.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'll bet you have one up your ass right now.

Smart Democrats avoided this like the plague, even after it come to the front page.

Just looked at NY.....all the Repubs, lead by asshole Peter King, voted AYE.

Oh....and this is all done for the oncoming Civil War part deux in Amerikkka. Nip it in the bud.

"Just looked at NY.....all the Repubs, lead by asshole Peter King, voted AYE."

"Small government" Republicans love Big Brother.

"Small government" Republicans love Big Brother.
#80 | Posted by nullifidian

I think we're at the point now where the differences between the two parties are more rhetorical than real.

"Just looked at NY.....all the Repubs, lead by asshole Peter King, voted AYE."
"Small government" Republicans love Big Brother.

#80 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2012-02-09 05:10 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You can say that not all Republicans are for "small government" but what you cannot say is that "small government" republicans love big brother. This flys in the face of their beliefs.

What you can always say is that the democrats in control of our country as well as the republicans love big government. Unfortunately!

"I think we're at the point now where the differences between the two parties are more rhetorical than real."

I guess that's why it was mostly a party line vote.

"you cannot say is that "small government" republicans love big brother. "

What I can say is that most Republicans who claim to be in favor of "small government" voted for this.

Fact!

I guess that's why it was mostly a party line vote.
#83 | Posted by nullifidian

Like Catholics verses Protestants. Politics is another religion where the State is the omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent god.

What I can say is that most Republicans who claim to be in favor of "small government" voted for this.

Maybe this is smart government trumping an incompetent goverment.

I have no problem with a big gov if they were actually able to efficiently govern. Instead we get Sheila Jackson-Lee infection spread around a big out of control harmful government.

Didn't the WH report today Obama regualtions cost businesses about $25 billion last year?

"you cannot say is that "small government" republicans love big brother. "
What I can say is that most Republicans who claim to be in favor of "small government" voted for this.
Fact!

#84 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2012-02-09 05:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Big difference between a bunch of lying politicians in Congress On the right and the large numbers of "The People" in this country on the right and left that believe in smaller government.

Hence the birth of the tea party!

Paul Ryan is always blabbering about "limited government". He voted yes for Big Brother. Typical Republican.

"Hence the birth of the tea party!"

Paul Ryan is a teabagger favorite.

Next we will have drone 18 wheelers driving across the country.

There's a bad song in here somewhere....

W covered the lines
And Bummer took the skies
Newt promised the moon
But couldn't reach it

Rmoney bought the air
Santorum cried no fair
Perry vowed to cut it
What was that third thing?

Grand Opening, Grand Closing
So long, Herman Cain
Bachman lost her overdrive
And Huntsman, aw who gives a shit...

It's almost done
We're almost there
There's no one left
No one who cares

The end is near
Didn't you know?
From here on out
It's the FEMA show

(unless Ron Paul is elected and eliminates it)

Thank you, JFK!!

Next up, all financial transactions will be electronic and the corporation that is our government will get piece of each and everyone.

Cue fat lady, begin overture.

Yes Spud they will be used on the borders with mexico But they will all so be used at protest marches ETC and you can bet they will come with infra red to spy into homes I am all so sure they will use them to track cars and I am sure the government can fine other uses beyond these obvious uses I just come up with in few seconds

" Even leaving aside the issue of weaponization (police officials now openly talk about equipping drones with “nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun”), the use of drones for domestic surveillance raises all sorts of extremely serious privacy concerns and other issues of potential abuse. Their ability to hover in the air undetected for long periods of time along with their comparatively cheap cost enables a type of broad, sustained societal surveillance that is now impractical, while equipping them with infra-red or heat-seeking detectors and high-powered cameras can provide extremely invasive imagery. The holes eaten into the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protections by the Drug War and the War on Terror means there are few Constitutional limits on how this technology can be used, and there are no real statutory or regulatory restrictions limiting their use. In sum, the potential for abuse is vast, the escalation in surveillance they ensure is substantial, and the effect they have on the culture of personal privacy â€" having the state employ hovering, high-tech, stealth video cameras that invade homes and other private spaces â€" is simply creepy."

"Drone technology is but the latest War on Terror weapon to be imported onto U.S. soil, and the dangers should be manifest. One article prominently touted on AeroVironment’s website hails the “Switchblade,” which the author excitingly describes as “an ingenious, miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon” and “the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader, even wholesale, weaponization of unmanned systems. ” The Switchblade drone is “a very short-range, low-altitude, lightweight, tube-fired UAV that is carried and deployed by individual warfighters.” It’s ideal for killing a person “behind barriers, around the corner of a building or in a cave.” Because of how small, light and easily deployable it is â€" it is meant to be used by a single individual on the ground, at the scene of the target â€" the article dubs this new product “the ultimate assassin bug.” I found that article because it was touted on the same website of the same drone company featured by NPR; that might have been an informative fact to include in the story.

As I’ve written about before, a prime aim of the sprawling Surveillance State â€" justified in the name of Terrorism â€" is to empower the government domestically. Indeed, the War on Terror now has a decidedly domestic flavor: with bin Laden dead and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan virtually nonexistent (i.e., with the original War on Terror justifications now gone), U.S. officials have been emphasizing that the leading threat is “homegrown Terrorists,” and the latest new War on Terror bill passed by the Senate focused on domestic powers and U.S. citizens as much as anything else. And, of course, the Obama administration has infamously asserted the power to target even U.S. citizens for assassination without a shred of due process. While one can certainly envision how drones could perform legitimate police functions, the importation of instruments like drone technology into domestic police activities raises a slew of profound questions, and there is one thing we can be certain of: establishment media outlets like NPR will do their best to obscure and belittle those questions while glorifying these weapons. That’s what it means to be the “establishment media.”

So the drone locates you and the army swoops by and black bags you and you wake up in Gitmo and it's all legal. WTF is happening in America.

If nothing else they will sure make speeding a bitch. By the time you get home there will be tickets in your mail box.

Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane?It's a drone, and it's watching you.That's what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.

No dumbass, it's the violation of Posse Commitatus that's so bad, but magically, 12/31/11 NDAA signed by President, 30,000 drones authorized 2/12. The govt LOVES you. The FAA now is what, defense? National Guard? Occupying force?

Whenever you maintain a standing army it has always been turned back on its population. That's why US did not have a standing army ever until after WWII, because people loved freedom. That's why Eisenhower made that silly speech about beware of the military industrial complex...a technological dictatorship...read his next paragraph, watch the clip, notice his fear, when he jumped after something dropped off screen.

I'm getting my blue force transponder, so I can walk around unmolested, you should too. Because civilians are red force to NorthCom, which means you are enemy.

The Rethug House wants to spy on Americans? (OK, well, I can believe that one)

#12 | Posted by Corky

LOL!!

Clinton put more police on the streets. But he's not a bad guy.

Things that just make you go Hmmmmmmmm....

They are gearing up for Obama'S civilian army,remember when he was running him saying that he wanted it to be as big and as well equipted as the military.