This sounds like sovereign citizen talk. Yes, you have the constitutional right to travel, but if you do it in a car, you have to be licensed, and your car has to be registered and insured. There are plenty of hilarious videos on YouTube showing what happens when a so called "sovereign citizen" meets a police officer. It always ends badly for the "traveller". Go look it up for yourself.
Flock's fastest-growing business is 60 mph police drones that can read license plates from the sky
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
This sounds like sovereign citizen talk. Yes, you have the constitutional right to travel, but if you do it in a car, you have to be licensed, and your car has to be registered and insured. There are plenty of hilarious videos on YouTube showing what happens when a so called "sovereign citizen" meets a police officer. It always ends badly for the "traveller". Go look it up for yourself.
DEMinSoCal
Posts: 60 +60
Then you are 1000% against traveling to the UK and other countries that have millions of cameras spread out on almost every street corner, watching you in public.
HomeyBroDude
Posts: 37 +27
1) It will not be long before drones are armed with various weapon types, from stunning to lethal. It is human nature to want to control.
2) Regarding drones in the US, if it flies on my property it dies.
2) Regarding drones in the US, if it flies on my property it dies.
A Tabby Person
Posts: 40 +17
Makes Everyone A Criminal
DEMinSoCal
Posts: 60 +60
Regarding #2, assuming you meant "over my property", one has to wonder if you can legally disable / destroy a drone flying over your property? Do you own the airspace above your property?
EDIT: I researched and it seems you own the airspace as high as is reasonable usable on your property, but above that, it's public airspace.
Last edited:
I think this thread has officially reached the point where the pie is no longer baked, it has achieved carbon dating.
We've gone from police drones and license plate readers to whether driving is a God given constitutional right, sovereign citizen arguments, the Founders, slave catchers, fascism, Judge Dredd, armed drones, and whether your property deed includes several thousand feet of atmosphere. Impressive work, fellow TS junkies.
Meanwhile, the actual issue is considerably more interesting.
First, “there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public” is not a magical phrase that ends every discussion about surveillance. The Supreme Court has specifically recognized that a person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection merely by entering public space, and that technology capable of compiling a person's movements over an extended period can raise constitutional questions that ordinary visual observation does not. Carpenter is rather explicit about that. You should probably go read it!
Second, whether driving requires a license has almost nothing to do with the interesting question here. A driver's license regulates your operation of a motor vehicle. It is not a blanket consent form reading, “Please construct a searchable history of everywhere my vehicle has appeared and distribute it however government policy permits.” Those are two completely different arguments.
Third, this technology has legitimate uses. Dispatching a drone ahead of officers to an active shooting, missing child report, burglary, dangerous suspect or other emergency could give first responders valuable information before they arrive. TheBigT42 and Hexic were getting somewhere useful with that distinction before the constitutional convention broke out.
But legitimate use does not require pretending abuse is impossible.
Flock itself acknowledges that plate translations can be incomplete or inaccurate and instructs users to confirm the computer generated result before acting on it. It also records the username, time, search purpose and plate queried specifically so searches can be audited. Current Flock policy says LPR data is deleted after 30 days by default, although customers can use different retention schedules where permitted, and agencies can choose whether to share their data with other agencies.
Those safeguards exist for a reason.
So the useful discussion isn't....“DRONES ARE TYRANNY!”
Nor is it...“I have nothing to hide, therefore scan everything.”
It's How long should the data exist?
Who can search it?
What constitutes a legitimate search?
How broadly can agencies share it?
How are false matches verified?
What happens when an officer abuses the system?
Should drones be dispatched to specific incidents, or routinely patrol and catalogue the general public?
And perhaps most importantly, who audits the auditors?
You can simultaneously believe that technology capable of finding a kidnapped child or violent suspect is extraordinarily useful and believe that giving government an enormous searchable surveillance network without strict rules would be extraordinarily stupid.
Those positions are not contradictory.
Apparently they merely require enough room in one's head to accommodate two thoughts simultaneously.
Now, if anyone needs me, I'll be researching whether the Ninth Amendment guarantees my natural right to shoot down a police drone with a trebuchet.
We've gone from police drones and license plate readers to whether driving is a God given constitutional right, sovereign citizen arguments, the Founders, slave catchers, fascism, Judge Dredd, armed drones, and whether your property deed includes several thousand feet of atmosphere. Impressive work, fellow TS junkies.
Meanwhile, the actual issue is considerably more interesting.
First, “there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public” is not a magical phrase that ends every discussion about surveillance. The Supreme Court has specifically recognized that a person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection merely by entering public space, and that technology capable of compiling a person's movements over an extended period can raise constitutional questions that ordinary visual observation does not. Carpenter is rather explicit about that. You should probably go read it!
Second, whether driving requires a license has almost nothing to do with the interesting question here. A driver's license regulates your operation of a motor vehicle. It is not a blanket consent form reading, “Please construct a searchable history of everywhere my vehicle has appeared and distribute it however government policy permits.” Those are two completely different arguments.
Third, this technology has legitimate uses. Dispatching a drone ahead of officers to an active shooting, missing child report, burglary, dangerous suspect or other emergency could give first responders valuable information before they arrive. TheBigT42 and Hexic were getting somewhere useful with that distinction before the constitutional convention broke out.
But legitimate use does not require pretending abuse is impossible.
Flock itself acknowledges that plate translations can be incomplete or inaccurate and instructs users to confirm the computer generated result before acting on it. It also records the username, time, search purpose and plate queried specifically so searches can be audited. Current Flock policy says LPR data is deleted after 30 days by default, although customers can use different retention schedules where permitted, and agencies can choose whether to share their data with other agencies.
Those safeguards exist for a reason.
So the useful discussion isn't....“DRONES ARE TYRANNY!”
Nor is it...“I have nothing to hide, therefore scan everything.”
It's How long should the data exist?
Who can search it?
What constitutes a legitimate search?
How broadly can agencies share it?
How are false matches verified?
What happens when an officer abuses the system?
Should drones be dispatched to specific incidents, or routinely patrol and catalogue the general public?
And perhaps most importantly, who audits the auditors?
You can simultaneously believe that technology capable of finding a kidnapped child or violent suspect is extraordinarily useful and believe that giving government an enormous searchable surveillance network without strict rules would be extraordinarily stupid.
Those positions are not contradictory.
Apparently they merely require enough room in one's head to accommodate two thoughts simultaneously.
Now, if anyone needs me, I'll be researching whether the Ninth Amendment guarantees my natural right to shoot down a police drone with a trebuchet.
Megalomaniac
Posts: 1,332 +1,448
It's amazing watching people try to come to grips with the reality of technofascism in the United States.
I've been sayintg it for a long time:
AI is no "bubble".
You are witnessing the birrth of a new infrastructure. Digital, electric and with surveillance baked in.
You can't opt out unless you're willing to move to another country.
Those Sovereign Citizens will continue to find themselves in the ICU.
I've been sayintg it for a long time:
AI is no "bubble".
You are witnessing the birrth of a new infrastructure. Digital, electric and with surveillance baked in.
You can't opt out unless you're willing to move to another country.
Those Sovereign Citizens will continue to find themselves in the ICU.
Honest Abe
Posts: 82 +79
Is this guy related to Zuckerberg? He sounds just like him lol
acrossthestars
Posts: 388 +347
This is a contradiction. You cannot have a drone in the skies that only sweeps the streets for license plates attached to cars being pursued by police, without necessarily creating a dragnet that catches every car in the immediate vicinity. Any one of those license plates registered is potentially about to get involved with law enforcement. The only way to know is to record everyone and filter out the noise, after the fact. Which necessarily requires reading all cars as a potential threat.
In the coming months, we need to decide if we want freedom or security. You can either be free and risk injury or be secure and have no rights. A truly secure population is soft, passive, indolent, impotent, and above all, a non-threat. Choose.
TheBigT42
Posts: 1,208 +1,464
It isn't a contratdiction.
One is ONLY deployed during an incident and ONLY works in the area of the incidient.
The other randomly patrols an area gathering data.
Similar threads
