RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional?

RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 6:01:10 PM)
and then the new generation of drones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMI7HIhKdIo

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 6:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit. Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. Speeding and the occasional accident for liability....at least for now. as are those lil black boxes & oh so friendly trackers (like On Star) they are putting in cars now too.. & that plug-in thing that slut Flo flogs for Progressive Insurance to track your driving.. but those can do so much more too like spy on & track employees, your spouse or kids.. etc.. traffic cameras are the least of it.. and once you know where they are you can adjust your driving or avoid them all together... the other stuff is totally a different animal.. [&:] You got it - and they want total power. At all costs.

jlf1961 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 6:36:22 PM)
You are aware the the drones in question are not predator drones, right?

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 6:44:53 PM)
here you go, check out MAV's coming to a theater near you soon, like your living room! quote: Air Force Bugbot Nano Drone Technology YIRMASTER Published on Apr 11, 2013 Air Force Bugbots Nano Drone video gives a peak inside what nano-drone technology the Federal Government is currently implementing within the united states more than a scary thought or sci-fi movie, they have arrived. The deadly, insect-sized drones of the future - Unobtrusive, Invasive, and Lethal are here as depicted in this old video The Air Force is reportedly developing winged drones that can sneak up on a suspected enemy as stealthily as a mosquito

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 6:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You are aware the the drones in question are not predator drones, right? depends on boundaries of your definition of "predator". with dna hacking and nanotech they sure as hell can be just as lethal as a nuke. assuredly they will test it before the courts catch up however if the courts ever do. if this society has anything that resembles a brain they would at a minimum dissolve anything that acts in accord with a quasi-public entity and draw a hard and fast line between private and public. But its doubtful anyone would add that up to understand its significance.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 7:05:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You are aware the the drones in question are not predator drones, right? I support the 4th amendment. Just weeks ago- all of this was denied by the administration. See a pattern? They deny an outarageous claim- then when it hits- they say it is no big deal- that it is Bushes fault- or they had no idea about it. They have no idea about anything what so ever- and they are paid to have some idea on what is happening. A high school class could do better then the current administration.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 7:10:14 PM)
and the average joe civilian can also have the same technology and capabilities the predators have, they are really easy to build you know. kids love the hell out of it for science projects. people as a rule do not do that shit however, governments do, they are the ones who make the money have the most benefit from it, to everyone else they simply use it for games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=weyRgRhKNzQ#at=84

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 7:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You are aware the the drones in question are not predator drones, right? depends on boundaries of your definition of "predator". with dna hacking and nanotech they sure as hell can be just as lethal as a nuke. assuredly they will test it before the courts catch up however if the courts ever do. if this society has anything that resembles a brain they would at a minimum dissolve anything that acts in accord with a quasi-public entity and draw a hard and fast line between private and public. But its doubtful anyone would add that up to understand its significance. It is significant- and the bulk here- are not interested in the bill of rights. The AP was upset that their reporters were under watch, reporters were intimidated as were policy makers- a done is one such method of surveiallence. Alot of damage can be done via drone- and no one here cares. No one cares. As long as the certain party is in office- it is ok- when Jeb Bush gets in 2016- then obamas fbi drone policy will be a bad one- tho it will never be obamas fault.

DomKen -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 8:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Seems likely that the same principle that allows cameras in public places allows drone surveillance in public as well. I hope if they're snooping inside private property they have a warrant. Why all of a sudden now...do they need a warrant ? The FBI can go into your home while everybody is away and take what intel the need. no warrant, no need to tell you. Where have you people been ? You bitch about govt. and their policies no matter their political party, yet don't even know the Patriot act etc. The constitutiton id fucking dead whenever it suits govt. No, they cannot. They still need a warrant to search your home.

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 9:02:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Seems likely that the same principle that allows cameras in public places allows drone surveillance in public as well. I hope if they're snooping inside private property they have a warrant. Why all of a sudden now...do they need a warrant ? The FBI can go into your home while everybody is away and take what intel the need. no warrant, no need to tell you. Where have you people been ? You bitch about govt. and their policies no matter their political party, yet don't even know the Patriot act etc. The constitutiton id fucking dead whenever it suits govt. No, they cannot. They still need a warrant to search your home. That depends. The trend now is no warrant. It depends what the topic is- who you are, who important you are.

thishereboi -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 5:32:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit. Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. That is interesting. Here they use traffic lights to keep the traffic flowing. How do the traffic camera's work?

PeonForHer -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 5:42:20 AM)
quote: Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The word I've emboldened renders all the others in that paragraph so weak as to be practically useless, as far as I can see.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 6:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. can they identify a car and report its position? if yes they are spying. As usual you are talking bollocks. How do you think traffic in major cities flows fairly smoothly ? Here in the states, traffic cameras are used as cash cows. Every time a car goes by one above the limit (or below if the calibration is off) the owner of the car gets a ticket mailed to them (not necessarily the driver). For a while, there was a constitutional problem because in the US, one has a right to face their accuser in court and you can't bring a robot into court but they tap danced around it by declaring that camera tickets were a civil penalty and not a criminal penalty and therefore exempt from the right to face ones accuser. A small town near here extended their city limits 2 miles along a highway to install a camera. Now, 60% of their budget comes from it. maybe you use cameras to move traffic in your cities on your side of the pond (or that's the Kool-Aid you've been fed) but over here, it's strictly money.

jlf1961 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 6:15:32 AM)
Consider the following: On drone use by the FBI 1) The drones in question are not predator drones, for the most part they are less than five feet by five feet, with a basic hi res camera and thermo imaging. 2) While predator drones are used on the Mexican border, and on occasion been made available to local law enforcement for dealing with hostage situations and fugitive location, you must remember these are the exception to the rule. 3) If you had read the article, you would have noticed that these are used when the safety of a human observation team is in doubt. On NSA monitoring of cell phones and internet use 1) This program started under Bush, and was continued under Obama. 2) My personal opinion is that the NSA is not really looking for terrorists, although they claim to have foiled some terrorist plots, they are bored and are gleaning emails, text messages and cell phone calls of a more personal and explicate nature. Considering how boring it is sitting at a computer all day long, the odd terrorist plot would be a bonus, the continued flow of amateur porn would probably be the norm. That is not to say that the Official Reason is a lie, it is just saying that the techs working on the program are for the most part bored out of their fucking minds. Use of CCTV systems to monitor citizens According to a few sources, the UK is the most surveilled country in the west. However it seems that everyone has forgotten this little tidbit: In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants. Lets face it, if you dont want to be on camera, have calls and email monitored, you need to eliminate all kinds of electronic communication, move to the most remote area you can find, and live in a cave or a cold war era missile installation of bunker. Or you can contact one of a number of firms that provide encryption equipment for private use.

tj444 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 6:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants. yeah, there are media reports about that from years ago so what Snowden did is not releasing info that puts the US at risk.. the info was out there already.. I watched Cheney getting hot under the collar and madly ranting about Snowden being this awful Traitor and that he has committed treason and needs to go to jail, blah blah blah.. I wanted to puke watching him spout his nonsense, like Cheney is so lilly white, who does he think he is fooling?.. he is just spouting the same BS line he did when he was in govt with his buddy/puppet Bush.. [:'(]

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 6:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Consider the following: On drone use by the FBI 1) The drones in question are not predator drones, for the most part they are less than five feet by five feet, with a basic hi res camera and thermo imaging. 2) While predator drones are used on the Mexican border, and on occasion been made available to local law enforcement for dealing with hostage situations and fugitive location, you must remember these are the exception to the rule. 3) If you had read the article, you would have noticed that these are used when the safety of a human observation team is in doubt. On NSA monitoring of cell phones and internet use 1) This program started under Bush, and was continued under Obama. 2) My personal opinion is that the NSA is not really looking for terrorists, although they claim to have foiled some terrorist plots, they are bored and are gleaning emails, text messages and cell phone calls of a more personal and explicate nature. Considering how boring it is sitting at a computer all day long, the odd terrorist plot would be a bonus, the continued flow of amateur porn would probably be the norm. That is not to say that the Official Reason is a lie, it is just saying that the techs working on the program are for the most part bored out of their fucking minds. Use of CCTV systems to monitor citizens According to a few sources, the UK is the most surveilled country in the west. However it seems that everyone has forgotten this little tidbit: In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants. Lets face it, if you dont want to be on camera, have calls and email monitored, you need to eliminate all kinds of electronic communication, move to the most remote area you can find, and live in a cave or a cold war era missile installation of bunker. Or you can contact one of a number of firms that provide encryption equipment for private use. ok so then using government definitions, the government is "terrorizing" americans.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 6:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam For a while, there was a constitutional problem because in the US, one has a right to face their accuser in court and you can't bring a robot into court but they tap danced around it by declaring that camera tickets were a civil penalty and not a criminal penalty and therefore exempt from the right to face ones accuser. america is governed by the Rule of Money, not the rule of law, hence dubya correctly saying the constitution is nothing more than a fucking piece of paper. they can use "reason" and draw any damn construction they want from it in favor of the state, in fact most law is written that way. its a totally fucking stacked deck since court biz is a huge biz racket extorting trillions from people and adjudicated in the muni courts which are run not much differently than a judge judy episode with a star chamber twist.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 12:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That is interesting. Here they use traffic lights to keep the traffic flowing. How do the traffic camera's work? Transport For London have an integrated system. Road junctions are kept flowing with the use of CCTV, Computers and traffic signals. They can alter the flow of traffic as desired and also spot breakdowns far quicker. Just one of the reasons there are so many cameras in London. The Police also have a system of cameras called ANPR. These scan plates and then check owners details to see if the car is stolen, taxed, insured. They can also check where cars involved in crimes are heading. Many will piss and moan that this is spying, but it is also an effective tool for public safety. ANPR allowed the police to catch the Glasgow Airport bombers within three days of the attack.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 12:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That is interesting. Here they use traffic lights to keep the traffic flowing. How do the traffic camera's work? Transport For London have an integrated system. Road junctions are kept flowing with the use of CCTV, Computers and traffic signals. They can alter the flow of traffic as desired and also spot breakdowns far quicker. Just one of the reasons there are so many cameras in London. The Police also have a system of cameras called ANPR. These scan plates and then check owners details to see if the car is stolen, taxed, insured. They can also check where cars involved in crimes are heading. Many will piss and moan that this is spying, but it is also an effective tool for public safety. ANPR allowed the police to catch the Glasgow Airport bombers within three days of the attack. In the states, the cameras are used to make $ and that's it. Last month, the police asked for the footage from one to investigate a fatal accident near here and they were told that the cameras only turn on when a violation is detected so they're useless for solving crimes.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/20/2013 12:34:51 PM)
quote: According to a few sources, the UK is the most surveilled country in the west. Not according to any reliable sources. The majority of the CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned. Protecting ones property in this way isnt the same as State Surveillance, as some on here would have you believe. Add to that, the original report was not only disputed but is six years out of date.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125