backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Apr 22 at 5:05 PM


Some civil liberties advocates feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the killings of Americans on U.S. soil.  (Source: Drone Wars UK)
The feds won't be happy about this

Not in our state.

I. Drone Controversy Heats Up

That's the message Florida legislators sent to law enforcement official both at a federal and state level, as well as defense and national intelligence agencies when it came to allegedly abusive overuse of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly dubbed drones.  The officials this week passed a law that would not altogether ban drone use in Florida, but would seriously restrict it.

As drone use has exploded overseas in conflict regions, both for surveillance and combat, the fliers have begun to creep into U.S. airspace as well.  The Obama administration recently suggested that armed drone death strikes could potentially be carried out without warrant against American citizens on U.S. soil, under certain circumstances.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have complained about the federal government's refusal to ban the use of armed drones over U.S. states.  But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been unapologetic about deploying the same kinds of drones used in Iraq -- Reaper drones and their ilk -- to patrol U.S. border states.

Some law enforcement officials argue that for small police forces, lighter drones -- which cost around $30,000 USD -- are a highly cost-effective tool for patrolling and can help catch criminals.  They say banning drones will raise costs.

II. Florida Limits the "Police State"

But those pleas fell on deaf ears as Florida legislators passed the "Freedom From Unwanted Surveillance Act" SB 92 117-0. Gov. Rick Scott (R) has already promised to sign the bill, which will make Florida only the third state to restrict drone use.  Idaho and Virginia had passed similar laws.

Under the bill drones could only be used by law enforcement in a handful of scenarios -- for example searching for a kidnapped child, managing hostage situations, searching for a dangerous fugitive, or tracking hurricanes/wildfires to prevent serious property damage.  But any use in a criminal case will now require surveillance to be ordered via a warrant -- ensuring due process.  Illegally gathered evidence, under the law, will not be admissible in court and may lead to penalties for the collecting department.

It also contains an allowance for drone use in the case of a "credible threat" of an (imminent) terrorist attack.

So far, only three law enforcement agencies are licensed to use UAVs in Florida by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and none of them have deployed fliers.

Sources: Florida State Senate, AP



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Will get bad
By Ammohunt on 4/18/2013 9:11:59 PM , Rating: 5
Soon you will need and underground house with faraday cages for rooms just to get any privacy in this country.




RE: Will get bad
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 7:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, I doubt you will ever need to do that. I would say drones along the borderline is fine because that's where you will most likely catch drug traffickers and illegal immigrants.


RE: Will get bad
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 9:50:03 AM , Rating: 3
Soon?

As shown by the aggregation of imagery due to the Boston Marathon event, right now you have virtually zero privacy once you are in a "public" area. This extends into most businesses too since most businesses have surveillance cameras within their buildings (and NOT just "public" areas in those businesses).

Also most states have laws on the books that restrict what you can do in front of windows in your home, e.g., you can't stand nude or perform sexual acts in clear view through a window that can be seen from a public area. Therefore, to some extent actions within your home are already regulated from a surveillance standpoint.

Hell, back in the 60s, in my younger and more paranoid days, with the knowledge I had what was possible in surveillance and such, I decided that I was going to build an underground house and the only thing above ground was going to be the garage. (It was not only for surveillance reasons but also for thermodynamic reasons.) Luckily I got over my paranoia and decided it was OK for me to try to live in the real world. My current house sits on a hillside with a very wide (about 150 degree) view of the valley/city below. Want to see what I'm doing? Get your binoculars and take a look. Feel free.


RE: Will get bad
By Integral9 on 4/19/2013 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
HEY! What you are you planning on doing with that duck? Put the rubber hose down, sir!


RE: Will get bad
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 11:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Are you crazy?

quote:
As shown by the aggregation of imagery due to the Boston Marathon event, right now you have virtually zero privacy once you are in a "public" area. This extends into most businesses too since most businesses have surveillance cameras within their buildings (and NOT just "public" areas in those businesses).


No kidding. It's public area. You, as well as the government can take images of anything you want. The only thing you can't do is intentionally photographing minors without permission. How do you demand privacy in public? lol

quote:
Also most states have laws on the books that restrict what you can do in front of windows in your home, e.g., you can't stand nude or perform sexual acts in clear view through a window that can be seen from a public area. Therefore, to some extent actions within your home are already regulated from a surveillance standpoint


Ok that is an obvious law because there are looneys out there who did walk around naked with a wide open window. When kids walk around the street they can see it and it's disturbing. I don't want to see anyone dancing naked in their front window either. This has nothing to do with the government trying to take away your privacy. It's a law for mutual respect.

quote:
Hell, back in the 60s, in my younger and more paranoid days, with the knowledge I had what was possible in surveillance and such, I decided that I was going to build an underground house and the only thing above ground was going to be the garage. (It was not only for surveillance reasons but also for thermodynamic reasons.) Luckily I got over my paranoia and decided it was OK for me to try to live in the real world. My current house sits on a hillside with a very wide (about 150 degree) view of the valley/city below. Want to see what I'm doing? Get your binoculars and take a look. Feel free


I have nothing to say to this as you did not harm anyone or did anything to disturb others. However, that is a bit excessive.


RE: Will get bad
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 3:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you crazy?
Never said I wasn't.

I used to see a therapist back in the 80s.

But, I'm MUCH better now! :-)


RE: Will get bad
By Ammohunt on 4/19/2013 11:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can't perform sexual acts in clear view through a window that can be seen from a public area.


Oops!..i was young and stupid.

quote:
Hell, back in the 60s, in my younger and more paranoid days, with the knowledge I had what was possible in surveillance and such, I decided that I was going to build an underground house and the only thing above ground was going to be the garage. (It was not only for surveillance reasons but also for thermodynamic reasons.)


there is a house in my neighborhood that is under ground with only the entrance sticking out above. i often wondered what would poses someone to build their house like that..in the middle of a small town.Truth be known If i had the land i would build partially underground for thermodynamic reasons as well nice constant temperature.

I have no secrets but my business is my own just want to be left alone to lawfully pursue my happiness and live my life obstructed by others. Is that too much to ask?


RE: Will get bad
By BRB29 on 4/22/2013 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
the energy savings is great until you realize the radiation is much higher when you are lower in the ground. But if you have excellent ventilation then it doesn't matter :)
But if you have a lot of air moving in and out then it cancels out a lot of energy you saved.


RE: Will get bad
By Ammohunt on 4/22/2013 5:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Radiation from Radon gas?


loving my state
By wrxtunr on 4/18/2013 9:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
As a citizen of florida i am very happy about many things my politicians are currently doing in the state. Not enforcing any new gun laws, not allowing drones to be used without due process, or basically letting citizens enjoy their life the way they want to live it without big brother all over their backs. I heard a great statement the other day - the thing about *most* democrats is that they want freedom of choice...but only when that choice is killing a fetus...otherwise they want you to live under their laws and take away your rights. i honestly dont vote party lines but rather for the best fit for the job, if more people were willing to do that maybe we could finally turn this shitstorm around, but either way i know if society collapses i have plenty of natural resources around me and few enough people i will be just fine




RE: loving my state
By Misty Dingos on 4/19/2013 8:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
I am a nice guy and I like to help people out so here goes. Dude you live on the east coast of the USofA. If society collapses you and the 150,000,000 will be starving in a month. Hunger, age, health, will power and simple math will turn 150 million into 100 million in a month. After the first month you will look back at that as the halcyon days of yore as you scramble to find enough food just to live another day. Cannibalism will be rampant and that number will drop to about 75 million in three or four months.

And you live on a peninsula. Or as I like to call it a trap. Due to the nice weather and more pletiful food souces, your exsistence is dubious at best after three months. You don't really think all those Yankees are going to stay up north for the winter do you?

My ardent hope is that society does not collapse. The fantasies people dream up about TEOTWAWKI are exactly that. And just in case you think you have enough guns to protect yourself, think again. As the number of people alive contracts the number of guns per person will rise. In short order the guns available for use will reach ten to twenty per person. In other words there will be enough available firepower to achieve pretty much what ever goal those with the guns wish to.

So get out and enjoy the sun today. And pray the world does not go to crap because if it does the term "it will suck" will be the punch line for ten generations to come.


RE: loving my state
By Spuke on 4/19/2013 9:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cannibalism will be rampant and that number will drop to about 75 million in three or four months.
LMAO!!!


RE: loving my state
By 7Enigma on 4/19/2013 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
Dude has been playing WAYYYYYY too much Plague on his phone and watching The Walking Dead me thinks...


RE: loving my state
By Misty Dingos on 4/19/2013 12:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
No he speaks like someone who's job it was to run the numbers. Now you sound like 99.9% of Americans that think the store shelves can never empty and that food will magically appear in some form to keep them happy in front of their HDTVs. Our modern society balances on a knives blade of supply.

But to be fair. It drives me a little nuts when those that think a hole in the ground, a couple thousand rounds of ammo and an AR-15 are all they need to survive their fantasy end of the world.

I should have said. The world is not going to end even if it does go to utter crap. People will help other people and form communities. The hole dwelers would be mistrusted at best.

Didn't like plauge way too depressing. And the zombie appocolypse is lame. No thank you.


RE: loving my state
By Skywalker123 on 4/21/2013 5:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But to be fair. It drives me a little nuts when those that think a hole in the ground, a couple thousand rounds of ammo and an AR-15 are all they need to survive their fantasy end of the world.


Well, you can stop going nuts, i never heard of anyone like that, one of the first things survivalists do is store a couple years supply of canned food in their "hole in the ground" The "hole dwellers" wont need help and would distrust all the people that didnt prepare.


RE: loving my state
By 91TTZ on 4/22/2013 12:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
Stop with the doom and gloom. Plenty of people are capable of living off the grid. I know some city slickers think that if supermarkets closed it would be mass chaos and starvation (and it would be in major cities), the fact is that many people know how to hunt and grow their own food. If society suddenly collapsed I personally wouldn't have a problem eating. I live out in the countryside and grow enough food in my own yard that I could eat all year round. If someone tried to steal my food only then would I have to defend it.


RE: loving my state
By Ammohunt on 4/22/2013 5:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People will help other people and form communities.


I wouldn't count on it hard to form a community when you have roving gangs if resource hungry heavily armed bandits. For those that scoff you might want to study up on he dark ages...it could happen again very easily.


RE: loving my state
By topkill on 4/20/2013 1:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, I get the very disturbing feeling that you're really looking forward to this. You almost sound aroused by the scenario. Seek help.


PETA and Other Private Agencies
By DougF on 4/19/2013 4:22:52 AM , Rating: 1
How will this affect PETAs plans to use drones to monitor farms and other areas where they think animal "rights" are being violated? Will this mean any evidence obtained can't be used in a court of law?




RE: PETA and Other Private Agencies
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 7:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
we got more problems right now than worrying about animal rights


RE: PETA and Other Private Agencies
By Spuke on 4/19/2013 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we got more problems right now than worrying about animal rights
Word


RE: PETA and Other Private Agencies
By DougF on 4/19/2013 12:54:40 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh...I'm dealing with morons...

The issue is information gathered from UAVs, I only used PETA as an example because they've declared they want to use UAVs to monitor farmers and others who deal with animals.

Now, concentrate...

1) Does Florida's law mean information gathered from UAVs can be used in a court of law if there is no warrant for such information, even if the information is gathered by a non-government agency?

2) Would the information gathered by a UAV be admissible as evidence if the persons/organization were specifically looking for wrongdoing, instead of just a general activity, such a picture taking?

3) Would information gathered by a UAV be admissible as evidence if the persons/organization were legally engaging in an occupation that took such pictures, even if the activity would not normally be seen from a public road?

4) If yes to #3, does that mean the airspace above a private residence is considered a public throughway and we have no expectation of privacy outside of a covered structure?

...You may now return to your inane commentary about PETA and animal rights...</sarcasm>


RE: PETA and Other Private Agencies
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 1:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...I'm dealing with a moron...

Anything you do in public and captured can be used against you because it's legal. Public places have no privacy laws besides for minors.

It is illegal for the government to use drones, cameras, etc... to spy on home and use it against you without a warrant. Even security cameras cannot point at another person's private property. If you have security cameras, you cannot point it past your own private property.

Look up the laws before you make crazy assumptions. There's so many cases of drug dealers getting away because cases were completely thrown out from law enforcement overreaching their power and infringing privacy rights.


By Skywalker123 on 4/21/2013 5:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
cause we can't do two things at once.


By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals ??


You deserve it.
By mike66 on 4/18/2013 11:43:33 PM , Rating: 4
I am trying not to laugh my head off, but what can I say, democracy died in the USA a long time ago, maybe the Boston marathon bombing ( I am very sorry for the victims ) will push the rest of the country into allowing drone use. " You reaper what you so ".




RE: You deserve it.
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 11:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
If you are paranoid about surveillance Reapers (aka, ER/MP, Warrior, Sky Warrior, etc.) are not the platforms about which to worry. Their sensors are not that high resolution and are basically soda straw fields of view. Think ARGUS-IS, Hawkeye II, and Gorgon State and their follow on systems. You might find out that you have get to begin to be paranoid!


RE: You deserve it.
By mike66 on 4/19/2013 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Once you start allowing using anything then it's the "foot in the door" principle. Next maybe is the argument that you don't own the air space over your private property. Civilian drones will catch up to military drones pretty quickly in technology. I've already seen a miniature glider type. Use an "infinity lens" ( I bought one for my mobile phone and it does amazing pictures now ) and they are really small and light and you have really good resolution.


Drones Don't Always = Combat Drones
By deltaend on 4/19/2013 9:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
I hate that people are always worried about military grade combat drones being used. Doesn't it make sense to have police drones that can chase people instead of leading to deadly road chases? Doesn't it make sense to get a runner from the police chased by a drone instead of a human on foot? Personally I think that this could cut costs and aid our police forces but I'm sure that everyone is always thinking Predator drone when the word "Drone" is used.




By JPForums on 4/19/2013 10:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that is the issue. I think that many people in the U.S. view non-combat drones as an invasion of privacy. It could lead to a situation similar to London only the camera's are in the sky, not on the buildings.


Stupid
By Stan11003 on 4/19/2013 10:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
So LEO will have to use expensive helicopters to chase suspects and monitor traffic accidents instead of drones.




RE: Stupid
By sorry dog on 4/20/2013 11:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yes sir, you are absolutely correct.

Which means that because it is expensive, only those activities that are of the highest public priority will get aerial surveillance.

It's when the surveillance becomes ultra cheap that people with too much time on their hands will use it intrude on mainstream activities of the population.


Boston
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Under the bill drones could only be used by law enforcement in a handful of scenarios -- for example searching for a kidnapped child, managing hostage situations, searching for a dangerous fugitive, or tracking hurricanes/wildfires to prevent serious property damage.


What about preventive measures?

If a couple "drones" had been flying for several hours before the start of the Boston Marathon up through an hour or so after -- AND the drones had something along the lines of the ARGUS-IS sensor [or better yet, the newer variants] then it might have been possible to have stopped the bombings before they happened or, at the very least, have had traceability on the individuals who planned and placed the devices.

Also, only an idiot would use a "drone" to track a hurricane. Typical storm heights of these types go much higher than typical drones fly and the fly by satellite nature of these "drones" is not conducive the the short reaction times necessary -- not to mention that the frequency bands used for this don't do well in severe weather. Overshooting tops can get up to 60 kft. So those will even affect things like Global Hawk and Triton.




RE: Boston
By sorry dog on 4/20/2013 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, you do know that many of the drones do have a pilot. The pilot is just not in the plane.

I would not be surprised to see drones start to be used by the Hurricane Hunter squadron in the next few years.


By sorry dog on 4/20/2013 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
One of the biggest issues with the proliferation of drones is the safety of existing flights in our airspace.

Just last month a commercial flight landing at JFK airport reported quadracopter drone around 200 feet from his plane at around 1700 feet. That is REAL close for plane on final approach going around 200 knots. The report was only made public after private ATC listeners made it public. It's sorta of suspicious that the FAA or any other agency has only acknowledged the report and nothing else has been heard about it. It kinda makes me think it was some local government agency that was operating it.

But, the basic point is that it is only a matter of time before one of these things collides with something more important and causes a major incident. Of course, then everybody is going to scramble on the safety aspect of drones and the blame game will start...




Who lobbied for this?
By ptmmac on 4/20/2013 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure who lobbied for this measure and I would be interested to see who it was. The one sure beneficiary will be drug smugglers. Florida has a lot of money that arrived in the state this way. I also don't expect the federal government to roll over and simply say "sure you can pass a law that shuts down our security systems along the border of the country. I would expect the SCOTUS to over turn this if that is what the Florida legislature is expecting to get out of this. Defending the country from external threats is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the federal government.

On the other hand, if this is just to stop some local cop from earning more funds from property seizures from drug busts, I would definitely support it.




!!!!!!!!!
By ZoeAnderson24 on 4/22/2013 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
before I saw the receipt for $6106, I did not believe that my friend actualy erning money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop.. there aunt has done this for only 17 months and at present paid the morgage on there villa and got themselves a Mazda. read more at, All29.comCHECK IT OUT




Obama
By 96suzuki on 4/18/13, Rating: -1
RE: Obama
By BRB29 on 4/19/2013 7:47:38 AM , Rating: 1
Have you ever bothered to research who actually started the drones?


RE: Obama
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 9:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
"Drones" were "started" several decades ago. We had them (and I have first hand knowledge of this -- and yes, unfortunately, I am that old) in the Vietnam war. They were called RPVs back then and the more significant ones were air launched from under the wing of a C-130 with ground recovery on skids (not wheels).


RE: Obama
By JPForums on 4/19/2013 9:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
True, but that was foreign airspace. When were they first used in American Airspace? Also, when were they first used (intentionally) against American citizens.


RE: Obama
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 11:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the "against American citizens" part, but I have first hand knowledge of "drones" being used within U.S. borders (and not just by the federal government) in the 1970s. They are not a new thing.


RE: Obama
By JPForums on 4/19/2013 11:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
That is a little earlier than I expected, but I'm not largely surprised by it. Does anyone here happen to know when they were first used against a U.S. citizen (combative or surveillance)? I'd guess late 80s or early 90s but my evidences are largely speculative.

Thanks for the info Shadow.


RE: Obama
By JPForums on 4/19/2013 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good point, but I'm not aware of any previous American presidency suggesting the possibility of a (legal) warrantless strike on American soil, against an American citizen.

This is actually a great example of the reason why America's conservative wing is so reluctant to give the government more powers. It invariably ends up used for purposes that it wasn't intended for, even when safeguards are put into place specifically to prevent such a thing.


RE: Obama
By Rukkian on 4/19/2013 10:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is actually a great example of the reason why America's conservative wing is so reluctant to give the government more powers. It invariably ends up used for purposes that it wasn't intended for, even when safeguards are put into place specifically to prevent such a thing.


Wasn't it under President Bush that the Patriot Act got passed?

Neither side wants the other to get more power, but everybody in power simply wants more power. That is how it goes with egotistical windbags we seem to be electing.


RE: Obama
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither side wants the other to get more power, but everybody in power simply wants more power. That is how it goes with egotistical windbags we seem to be electing.
I don't think a truer pair of statements have ever been posted to this site!


RE: Obama
By JPForums on 4/19/2013 11:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither side wants the other to get more power, but everybody in power simply wants more power. That is how it goes with egotistical windbags we seem to be electing.
True that. Though, I should point out I was more referring to the American populace than the political wing. That's why I didn't say Republicans.

quote:
Wasn't it under President Bush that the Patriot Act got passed?
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Patriot Act allowed for warrantless drone strikes (think lethal) on American soil, against American citizens . Even if it did, that American presidency certainly never publicly condoned such a measure. It doesn't really matter, though, as the Patriot Act did open the door for warrantless search and seizure and other equally distasteful measures. I wouldn't be surprised if the expansions of power given in the Patriot Act are largely responsible for the situation America finds itself in today. The fact remains America has elect presidents for four consecutive terms that are destroying their liberties, justified or not.


RE: Obama
By Shadowself on 4/19/2013 3:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if it did, that American presidency certainly never publicly condoned such a measure.
So that fact that Cheney said about four feet from me at breakfast one morning that his interpretation of the Patriot Act allowed him (though maybe he meant the Bush administration rather than he, himself) to use any means necessary to protect the country, including clandestine surveillance and remotely controlled deadly force against U.S. Citizens if the Bush administration deemed that person to be a terrorist, was OK so long as he didn't say it publicly?


RE: Obama
By KCjoker on 4/19/2013 5:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, Obama was a Senator at the time and voted for it. Then as President he renewed it.


RE: Obama
By Misty Dingos on 4/19/2013 10:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Obama is not a communist. He is a socialist. The difference is not all that subtle.
The drones were going to happen because technology progressed to a point that it was inevitable. Who was in office at the time is utterly irrelevant.
What we do to protect our diminishing civil liberties is. Florida, Idaho and Virginia seem to be the states to follow in this regard. I know not the states I would have suspected for this.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki