Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

When the Nazis came for the trolls,
I LOL'ed;
I was not a troll.

Seems like a good place to put this:

CheezePavilion wrote:

When the Nazis came for the trolls,
I LOL'ed;
I was not a troll.

Well played, sir.

93_confirmed wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

This quote sums it up well:

Godwin wrote:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

FTFY

I haven't referenced Germany or Nazis once in any of my threads and only chose this quote to summarize the aforementioned scenario. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you done trolling for today?

I thought you were trolling when you trotted out that quote. My bad.

So who is getting locked up that we are ignoring?

Because it seems like the FBI was talking about people who work outside the system, not within it. And then you decided to redefine what the FBI said and pretend to be persecuted.

The FBI named J.J. MacNab as an expert on the kind of folks they are talking about. Tell me if these are the kind of people you don't want the government coming for.

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

DSGamer wrote:

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

Moreso than their nonexistence

Tanglebones wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

Moreso than their nonexistence :P

Right. Good point. So eternal police state it is. War on Terror, War on Drugs forever and ever.

DSGamer wrote:

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

Conversely, the existence of occasional and comparatively minor overreach validates calling an extremely free society a "police state". Got that.

I swear, hyperbole is going to send us the way of the dinosaurs.

Paleocon wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

Conversely, the existence of occasional and comparatively minor overreach validates calling an extremely free society a "police state". Got that.

Minor overreach? We've passed laws that are unconstitutional.

DSGamer wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

So the existence of actual threats validates government overreach? Got it.

Conversely, the existence of occasional and comparatively minor overreach validates calling an extremely free society a "police state". Got that.

Minor overreach? We've passed laws that are unconstitutional.

We have always passed laws that are unconstitutional. That's why we have three branches of government. And though the wheels turn slowly, they turn. There is most certainly a system that protects the rights of individuals, mechanisms for petitioning the government for the redress of grievances, and very little if any real control over the flow of information necessary to make informed decisions about government. We are freer today in just about every meaningful way than we have ever been in human history.

If THIS is a police state. If this representative democracy where 100% of adult, law abiding, citizen population is open to the franchise of self governance (irrespective of race, color, creed, or gender) is a police state, the world has been a cornholed Kafkaesque state since the first ape came down from the trees.

That's not precisely true, Paleocon. Strictly speaking, humans living in small tribes comprised of very small family units in hunter-gatherer tribes could be called "freer," in a number of ways, depending on how you choose to define "free."

Hypatian wrote:

I swear, hyperbole is going to send us the way of the dinosaurs.

LarryC wrote:

That's not precisely true, Paleocon. Strictly speaking, humans living in small tribes comprised of very small family units in hunter-gatherer tribes could be called "freer," in a number of ways, depending on how you choose to define "free."

So you are agreeing with Paleocon's actual point? Or did you lose it in your zest to prove someone wrong?

Neither, Jayhawker. You missed the point entirely.

Neither, Jayhawker. You missed the point entirely.

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress

Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.

...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.

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

Nothing bad can possibly come of this.

93_confirmed wrote:

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress

Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.

...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.

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

Nothing bad can possibly come of this.

If you're not a criminal, what are you worried about?

I'm reading "Super Sad True Love Story" right now and the country feels more and more like America in that book.

Where is the line drawn for law enforcement to be excluded from technologies available to the general public? Should I be able to fly a camera drone around and take pictures of whatever I want, but the police can't? And how would I be stopped if it's *not* right for me to do it?

93_confirmed wrote:

Nothing bad can possibly come of this.

The text of the bill isn't exactly ominous. It simply deals with the reality that drones exist and its goal is to make sure there's a plan to integrate them into the nation's airspace and to establish safety and training guidelines for their use.

As with any new technology there is the possibility for misuse. However, there's also a lot of potential good that could come from having the government and the public be able to use drones: everything from city planning and traffic control to agriculture and resource exploration and even search and rescue. At the very least drones will likely be a hell of a lot cheaper to buy and operate than existing police helicopters, which means less taxpayer dollars spent.

And there's a lot of different types of drones so it's not like there will be 30,000 Reapers flying overhead in 2020 armed with Hellfire missiles and JDAMs. The vast majority are likely to be the micro variants which aren't designed to loiter over an area for days or be able to carry anything more than a camera.

DSGamer wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress

Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.

...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.

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

Nothing bad can possibly come of this.

If you're not a criminal, what are you worried about?

I'm reading "Super Sad True Love Story" right now and the country feels more and more like America in that book.

Provided they're unarmed camera drones? I don't see why not, they're not at all hard to build or fly. (I built one awhile ago to take an aerial photo of my neighborhood.)

As long as they're just cameras, and they follow the same laws and rules as everything else, why not? You'll just need to better codify the Z axis of personal property... which has needed to happen for awhile now, really.

I'm far more concerned about what the various private companies who are planning on putting them up will be using them for. But that's sort of my issue with this whole thread.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm far more concerned about what the various private companies who are planning on putting them up will be using them for. But that's sort of my issue with this whole thread.

They'll use them to make money, of course. And there's very likely a sh*tload more money in what the average citizen would consider mundane uses than the idea that we'd be tracked from when we leave the house to when we return.

OG_slinger wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm far more concerned about what the various private companies who are planning on putting them up will be using them for. But that's sort of my issue with this whole thread.

They'll use them to make money, of course. And there's very likely a sh*tload more money in what the average citizen would consider mundane uses than the idea that we'd be tracked from when we leave the house to when we return.

Dammit, I looked for that story yesterday, but thought I heard it on ATC. Fist to the Heavens Marketplaaace!

But, yes, exactly, I find that sort of thing far more vexing and chilling. And it doesn't exactly start when we leave the house and end when we return--remember Microsoft pitched to everyone that Kinect could send them data. Only could, but...

Group Forces Congressional Hearing On Big Sis’ Twitter, Drudge Spying
 

Homeland Security is monitoring the web for anti-government sentiment and signs of social unrest.

...Among the documents were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the web for media reports and comments that “reflect adversely” on the agency or the federal government.

As Reuters reported last month, in early 2010 contractors were asked to spend 24 hours monitoring news media coverage on popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks, as well as news sites including the Huffington Post and The Drudge Report.

The contractors were required to provide the DHS with feedback on any potential “threats and hazards”, as well as “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) ability to prevent, protect and respond, to recovery efforts or activities related to any crisis or events which impact National Planning Scenarios.”

Gee, I wonder if they'll find signs of anti-government sentiment and social unrest at a time when our inept government is failing its people, our economy is in the sh*tter, and country is dead broke yet fighting wars, nation building, and giving aid overseas.

Wrong thread.

on any potential “threats and hazards”

And note that you don't have to actually be a threat, you just have to be classified as a threat, and you can become an unperson and lose all rights to a fair trial or even the ability to challenge the classification.

People saying this isn't a police state simply aren't moving around enough to feel their chains.

IMAGE(http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/58335757643140400_tPufAXXS.jpg)

Looks like you can get arrested for trying to learn how to file a complaint against an officer.

Bonus listen to these people. It's a free country. You hear that. It's a free country. You know what that means, no complaints. Free country.