Will Toys-R-Us Carry Spy Drones? 189
First time accepted submitter TomOfAmalfi writes "People are concerned about government use of domestic surveillance drones, but how is that different than what happens when people make their own drones, or buy them at a toy store? These units don't have the endurance or performance of the 'professional' models, but they can be useful and will get better. I can hear the police now when they realize the protesters are tracking them with toys."
Barney Spy Drones (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, Barney, or Barbie Spy Drones. Can't wait.
But seriously, tech can be used for good and bad, and while it can be used by the police, it's apparent that the same tech can be used by people also. I'm sure they will scream and bitch, but will the make it illegal for civilians to use?
Re:Already started... sort of (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hope Visual Kitty works better than Acoustic Kitty did in the 60's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty [wikipedia.org]
Custodiret Eos (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always mused about how a grass-roots citizen intelligence agency that monitors the government and it's agents might be realized. It's not a matter of turn-about being fair play, but one of the notion of checks and balances. The US system of government only functions properly to the degree that it's transparent and accountable. There's lots of practical issues, not the least of which is that closely monitoring the government or blowing the whistle can often be illegal under current law. Nonetheless, Anonymous already exists as a Citizen's Intelligence Agency of sorts, and I think that's a trend that will continue.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Custodiret eos,
Re:Not to worry. (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a terrorist would spy on police with a toy UAV. And thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, any such terrorist can be detained by the military indefinitely and without trial, even if a US citizen arrested on US soil. That should teach them, right?
The NDAA says nothing about whether its detention provisions apply to U.S. citizens. And by that, I mean it explicitly says nothing:
Section 1021(e). AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Note there may be some ambiguity about whether this provision applies to all U.S. citizens or only U.S. citizens captured or arrested in the U.S. Link. [lawfareblog.com] I tend to think it covers all U.S. citizens, all lawful resident aliens of the U.S., and all people captured or arrested in the U.S. Regardless, though, it's clear that any power the government has to detain U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil is NOT "thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." If such power exists, it existed before the NDAA.
The Supreme Court has not definitively settled the issue. In Hamdi it ruled that authorization to use military force grants power to detain citizens captured on a foreign battlefield. Padilla, which dealt with a U.S. citizen captured in the U.S., was resolved by his indictment and conviction before the Supreme Court can rule on the issue. Thus, whether the government can detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil is unsettled as a national question.
There are plenty of reasons to think the NDAA bad. When attacking the law, we should focus on what it does, not what it explicitly states it does not do. Expanding the detention power with respect to tcitizens captured on U.S. soil is one of the things it does not do.
Re:Rhetorical or Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
4. Private citizens are not (generally) supposed to engage in surveillance of other private citizens under any conditions.
You obviously don't live in a housing development with CCRs (deed restrictions on what you can do with "your" house) or a HOA (home owners association, like with a condominium or housing development), that is monitored by a bunch of really angry busy bodies, or anywhere else where some of your neighbors have nothing better to do than concern themselves with the business of everyone else. Or a neighborhood bully. Or get on the wrong side of the neighborhood watch committee for a flippant comment questioning their authoritah.
Already happened in Russia (Score:5, Interesting)
This happened in Russia already. There was something of a flap over a small UAV observing pro-democracy protests in Moscow. But it wasn't the Government doing it. It was a group of bloggers with a model helicopter, and here are the pictures it took. [ridus.ru]