Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Congressman Releases Draft of Legislation On Domestic Drones and Privacy 70

Posted by samzenpus
from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Police would be required to get a warrant to use drones for certain types of surveillance under legislation introduced on Capitol Hill. The proposed bill would also tighten regulations on what kind of data can be collected by the government and private companies and how it can be used. To safeguard against abuses, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus and a longtime member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a draft of the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2012 on Wednesday." In related news, garymortimer points out that a North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressman Releases Draft of Legislation On Domestic Drones and Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • Simple Idea: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jxander (2605655) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @04:35PM (#40861565)

    How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.

    I don't expect to see police officers in Tanks, or wearing flack jackets and kevlar helmets, wielding M-16s. At least not on a day to day basis. So what makes it even remotely ok to use the same level of tech/hardware in the skies? Just because we can't see it??

    Maybe for emergency use. "Call the National Guard" type stuff, then sure, bust out whatever hardware is required to get the job done. But for day to day business, make the cops walk their beat.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @05:35PM (#40862181) Homepage

    According to what I have found about this "nearly-Mount Carmel" repeat, since when is defending one's own property "terrorizing?" I can't speak to the laws of that area, but when living in a rural area and a neighbor fails to control his livestock (you know, through the use and maintenance of fences and other devices) the property owner whose land is tresspassed by such livestock has many options and rights he might exercise which include using deadly force against the animals. (My mother shot and killed a neighbor's goat at about 80 yards with a 22 pistol as it was eating her young Apple tree... no charges were filed though the neighbor who lost a goat complained... no law was broken and she acted within the law.)

    The law also allows a land owner to prevent others from illegally trespassing on his land and deadly force is often allowed depending on local laws. The land owner is also under no obligation to return any livestock which wanders onto his property [especially due to the negligence of the livestock owner].

    So to call it theft of property is really stretching things as far as I can tell. And to call defending one's land and rights under the law "terrorizing"??? Really? Now they are really redefining things in some dangerous ways. Think of the deeper ramifications. Redefining "unlimited" to mean "limited" pales in comparison to the government guaranteeing your rights to defend yourself and property under law while at the same time charging a person who does with terrorism essentially revokes the law selectively.

A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love"

Working...