Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7806122


(Russia Today)   FBI Director admits to using drones for domestic surveillance, making a clear case to allow civilian ownership of SAMs under the 2nd Amendment   (rt.com) divider line 16
    More: Scary, FBI director, FBI, FBI Director Robert Mueller  
•       •       •

87 clicks; Favorite

16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-20 10:20:57 AM  
People who get scared by buzz words lack basic critical thinking skills. What's the big deal about using unmanned drones for surveillance? How is this any different than manned police helicopters and airplanes? Because the military and CIA have armed drones for foreign surgical strikes, that doesn't mean every drone flies around armed to the teeth. The US commonly uses drones for border patrols and searching for drug farms deep on state forests. I'm OK with that. Don't be fooled into thinking drones are scary sheeple.
 
2013-06-20 10:29:16 AM  

Lurking Fear: How is this any different than manned police helicopters and airplanes?


Because it's the FBI, not the staties and those helicopters aren't out 24/7 doing random surveillance, and the planes are limited to highways or specific searches for specific people; not blanket surveillance.

Plus, you know, we should stop being such pussies when it comes to the ooga booga terrorist and stop thinking they're literally everywhere and going to kill everyone like how the GOP acts when they oppose the closing of Gitmo. Bush used fear and paranoia to justify his implementing of the security state, and now Obama is taking his programs and running with them.
 
2013-06-20 10:31:20 AM  
just let me know when i can get my horny junior anti sex league girlfriend.
 
2013-06-20 11:21:41 AM  

Aarontology: Lurking Fear: How is this any different than manned police helicopters and airplanes?

Because it's the FBI, not the staties and those helicopters aren't out 24/7 doing random surveillance, and the planes are limited to highways or specific searches for specific people; not blanket surveillance.

Plus, you know, we should stop being such pussies when it comes to the ooga booga terrorist and stop thinking they're literally everywhere and going to kill everyone like how the GOP acts when they oppose the closing of Gitmo. Bush used fear and paranoia to justify his implementing of the security state, and now Obama is taking his programs and running with them.


Irrelevant. This isn't some scary thing. This is simply using modern technology to do something easier and safer. Drone does not mean remote controlled death machine.
 
2013-06-20 11:36:00 AM  

Lurking Fear: Irrelevant. This isn't some scary thing. This is simply using modern technology to do something easier and safer. Drone does not mean remote controlled death machine.


I'm not saying it is a remote controlled death machine. At least, not until RAND PAUL gets a hold of them since he's OK with the cops drone striking shoplifters on the street.

You asked what the difference was, and I explained. Different levels of legal authority using different tools and means for different ends. Dismissing it as irrelevant because you're scared of terrorists everywhere is just Cheney-esque fear mongering.

It's like saying the difference between a trial and a stint in Federal prison on the mainland and secret courts and declarations of "enemy combatant" and a stint in Gitmo are irrelevant because it's a modern update to how we treat terrorists. .
 
2013-06-20 11:58:10 AM  

Aarontology: Because it's the FBI, not the staties and those helicopters aren't out 24/7 doing random surveillance, and the planes are limited to highways or specific searches for specific people; not blanket surveillance.


wait, you believe this is true about helicopter and airplane surveillance but not drone surveillance?
 
2013-06-20 01:05:49 PM  

Aarontology: Because it's the FBI, not the staties and those helicopters aren't out 24/7 doing random surveillance, and the planes are limited to highways or specific searches for specific people; not blanket surveillance.


"Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) to elaborate, Mueller added, "It's very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident where you need the capability."
 
2013-06-20 01:07:27 PM  

Aarontology: Because it's the FBI, not the staties and those helicopters aren't out 24/7 doing random surveillance, and the planes are limited to highways or specific searches for specific people; not blanket surveillance.


So you're saying when the police helicopter starts chasing after some OJ wannabe, that's unconstitutional?
 
2013-06-20 01:09:03 PM  
Most dishonest arguments;

1. Fix mental health!
2. I need AR-15's to battle the military when the democratically elected government becomes "tyrannical."
 
2013-06-20 01:10:48 PM  
Did he mention it was only to catch his wife cheating with the poolboy, the nanny, and her bridge club.
 
2013-06-20 01:12:39 PM  

justtray: 2. I need AR-15's to battle the military when the democratically elected government becomes "tyrannical."


I always wondered about that -- do people really think that's justified? Oh, the cop was being a jackass and targeting me unfairly, so I shot him -- surely no jury will convict me!
 
2013-06-20 01:13:22 PM  
get used to it.
it's a brave new world.
 
2013-06-20 01:13:26 PM  

justtray: 1. Fix mental health!


Needs to be fixed, but not for the reasons that the NRA tries to tout. Prisons are not the place to house mental patients.

Arkanaut: So you're saying when the police helicopter starts chasing after some OJ wannabe, that's unconstitutional?


Having been on FARK over the past 9 years, I've come to the conclusion that some people seem to think the second amendment gives them the right to shoot at the police.
 
2013-06-20 01:14:21 PM  
As long as those drones are limited by the same rules and regulations that police helicopters are limited by, what's the big deal? The only thing that makes this different is that it's costing me less as a taxpayer (in the long run) and it doesn't endanger a pilot's life.
 
2013-06-20 01:20:38 PM  
They are using the kind of stuff you can buy out of skymall, and using it during active investigations.
 
2013-06-20 01:26:12 PM  

Nobodyn0se: As long as those drones are limited by the same rules and regulations that police helicopters are limited by, what's the big deal? The only thing that makes this different is that it's costing me less as a taxpayer (in the long run) and it doesn't endanger a pilot's life.


I'd argue that the low cost also makes it easier to do more surveillance. Now, Mueller may claim that they're not being used for blanket surveillance, but we've seen that the government hides behind private definitions. For example, a drone might spend 15 hours aloft recording everything in view, but the FBI wouldn't call that surveillance until they actually pay attention to something. Then they have a history of recorded material which can be used as a "focused investigation" if something - anything - interests them. I'd ask what data they retain, not just rely on a presumed definition of "surveillance". Also, I'd assume he's lying (see Clapper's testimony) and investigate further anyway.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report