187Views32Replies

Author Options:

Can we fight back Big Brother? Answered

Conoy Township in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; is voting to avoid flying surveillance remote controlled aircrafts above their skies. In a time when the United States government approves the use of drones to spy on the civilian population, I have found interesting how people are responding. This municipal ordinance definitely will not stop the use of drones on this area if deemed necessary for our national security but I wonder if this could be the start of a trend.

32 Replies

user
Josehf Murchison (author)2013-03-15

We already have them in Canada.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)ChrysN2013-03-15

Yea it was built by an OPP officer in Thunder Bay he wanted to combine his hobby with his work, since he was using it for his work and not a hobby he needed to get a special permit from the ministry of transportation.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ChrysN (author)Josehf Murchison2013-03-15

I hope it doesn't catch on.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)ChrysN2013-03-15

This is Canada

You have the right to legal counsel.
If you choose to exorcise the right to legal counsel you can wait in jail like Susan Nellas.

Hey the same person the higher courts have ruled can lie to you under the law, hand you a phone and tells you it is a lawyer.

And we are expected to believe him.

What do you think will happen?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)Josehf Murchison2013-03-15

I could not help to look for information on the case you mentioned. It is the one of the Toronto Hospital Murders?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Josehf Murchison (author)blkhawk2013-03-15

Yep she asked for a lawyer and they arrested her with on evidence against her.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

lets try that again, without evidence against her.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Just for asking a lawyer they went to a conclusion of her guilt I think. But she won and sue them all.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
iceng (author)2013-03-15

The next step in the Armor vs Bullets game

Surreptitious Surveillance ...vs... our privacy
is something like Laser Masking technology 

A

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)iceng2013-03-15

Soon you will see those flying over the Burning Man festival! :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)blkhawk2013-03-18

They better not get TOO low or they will find become like the noble Pheonix and his pyre LOL

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2013-03-16

By the way, the logic of opposition here is flawed; "I don't like it, people could look at kids in schoolyards with it".

The vast majority of school yards in any country are wide open to public view anyway, and you need nothing more than bare eyes to see the kids. If you want to prevent "somebody" taking pictures of children at play, you'll have to ban *all* photographic technology, including mobile phones.

Rather than be paranoid about what "somebody" *could* do, you need to educate people about what they *should* do with photographic equipment, and legislate in a way that does not restrict individual freedom, say a simple license required for UAVs with photographic capabilities, with a condition that equipment could be confiscated if it is misused, and fines for failure to license.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)Kiteman2013-03-16

I still do not know the reason but at every start of a new school year my wife and I have to sign a release form asking if we consent or not to have our children videotaped or photographed. Although I do agree with you about the flawed reasoning, it seems that school districts want to cover their butts somehow.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)blkhawk2013-03-16

That covers the school if they use photos of your kids in school brochures, or in press articles.

We had pupils at a past school who could not have their photo published outside the school, to prevent an abusive relative finding them and potentially kidnapping them.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Kiteman2013-03-18

advertisements, and various "magazines" etc. (J/K)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2013-03-17

"It would be up to individual landowners to determine if a remote-controlled aircraft flying over their property is a nuisance..."

That is an appalling law - allowing a private individual to determine whether the activities of another private individual are innocent or criminal, based entirely on the mood of the "victim" at the time.

The whole thing isn't actually about the invasion of privacy, but about one person finding radio controlled airceaft, with or without caneras, to be noisy and annoying, so he's trying to find a way to give himself the power to punish other people for daring to disturb his peace and quiet.

Further, he doesn't genuinely care about the privacy of individuals, just the minority of the population that can be classed as "landowners".

This is just a case of somebody misusing local political structures to grind a personal axe.

Case dismissed.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
racoontnn (author)2013-03-16

I am amazed. Are you in a country like this can easily resist the decision of the federal government? Try to do it in Russia. You immediately be charged with violation of federal law on the riots. Can be arrested, but persecution by the authorities will be.
In Russia, for model aircraft enthusiasts are no laws defining the space flight. So modelers fly where there's space to no one in the way. But if this is not like the officials, you may prohibit, impose a fine, and the models to select.
So appreciate the country in which you live. Appreciate her freedom.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)racoontnn2013-03-16

The township's ordinance can only apply to commercial institutions and private citizens. The law of the federal government supersedes any state and municipal law, therefore if an agency of the federal government deems necessary to use drones on Conoy Township, for example, no one can stop it. The ordinance is being voted on flying RCs with the ability to take pictures or videos only.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)2013-03-15

Americans are only too willing to give up their civil liberties in exchanges for being "protected" from whatever imaginary evildoer is the flavor of the month. Reds, Nazis, Commies, Hippies, Commies, Terrorists... (whoops, I forgot to include the Irish and Chinese in there before the Reds).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)kelseymh2013-03-15

Thanks to the Patriot Act!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)blkhawk2013-03-15

You have an extremely short memory. The American trade-off goes back to at least the Great War, and probably back to the War of Sothern Aggression.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)kelseymh2013-03-15

Come on! Don't you feel safer now? Now we can board the planes with pen knives! (Although we still have to take our shoes off) :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)blkhawk2013-03-15

And the Bush SCARE tactics

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)2013-03-15

I can not seem to find reference to it ANYWHERE, but a very CREEPY version of "drones" were the main characters in a tv show/short movie written, I think, by Stephan Hawkins (at least it was presented and introduced by him on the show, with a parting comment and warning).
I remember that they had developed these drones for use in a war; and after the war, made use of them in public. Things went fairly well until they were given AI, and made more autonmous. Pretty soon, to "enforce the law", they allowed no form of freedom at all, and anything that appeared to be the breaking of any law, brought them into action (many times killing the purp.). The timing was uncanny....just months before drones were in the news.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Goodhart2013-03-15

Sorry, I meant Stevan Hawking

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)Goodhart2013-03-15

Maybe you are referring to the Terminator movies. :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)blkhawk2013-03-15

Nope, here are two "clips: I found on the show:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjIYomjZvAE

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/stephen-hawkings-sci-fi-masters

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2013-03-15

Too little, too late.

In the UK, a trip through a city centre will get you caught by aroubd 300 different cctv cameras.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)Kiteman2013-03-15

Do drones fly over the UK?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)blkhawk2013-03-15

The police use them to monitor crowds, journalists use them, TV crews use them, farmers use them, energy workers use them, private hobbyists build their own and use them, but they are outnumbered, many thousands to one, by fixed cctv cameras, most of which are in private hands and out of the control of privacy laws. 

Now, they are outnumbered hundreds of thousands to one by mobile phone cameras, none of which are controlled by privacy laws. Having your picture taken is not the issue, no matter what device is used. The issue should be the fate of those images and their metadata; how where they are stored and distributed, with or without your permission or knowledge.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer