That's convenient. Make it to where anyone who disagrees with you hates America.
I gave reasons my why UAVs aren't a bad idea, and you deflected to a Pavlovian default response.That's convenient. Make it to where when you can't formulate a coherent response, you make a stupid deflection argument instead.
And now you're being defensive, and throwing out subtle insults instead of "formulating a coherent response". It's convenient is all. You can't come up with a reason against the utilization of UAVs without making long raving monologue, and when somebody does walk into your little trap, you run and hide behind the founding fathers, and how you apparently love them more.I never said you "hate America", I said I don't find the Founder's to be dumb and the system was built in order to make government inefficient and reactive. Which are all true. So you can stick to the facts or you can indulge your hysteria; the choice is yours.
I gave reasons my why UAVs aren't a bad idea, and you deflected to a Pavlovian default response.
And now you're being defensive, and throwing out subtle insults instead of "formulating a coherent response". It's convenient is all. You can't come up with a reason against the utilization of UAVs without making long raving monologue, and when somebody does walk into your little trap, you run and hide behind the founding fathers, and how you apparently love them more.
I would have accepted that it poses a threat to the Fourth Amendment, I would have also accepted an argument on the more utilitarian qualities of helicopters and the availability of an actual helicopter crew s a machine that can't offer immediate aid and support to search and rescue missions, and I'm sure there are many more arguments to be made by people who actually want a real discussion about where the UAV fits into the civilian world, but you didn't argue any of that. You ranted, raved, and copped out.
The UAV will be implemented, discussion of how they're used now decides how far they can go, and what necessary limitations are placed on them. If you want to live in the stone age, and pretend it isn't happening, go ahead, but don't talk down to me as though your participation here was so amazing.
So nothing but insults and deflections. Figures.
I've already made all those arguments in other threads, and not living in the stone age is why I can understand the true threat of UAVs. You want to discuss, discuss it. But your immediate response was nothing more than to call an argument "dumb" because you didn't agree with it and if all you have is idiotic deflections, then run your mouth at the wall because that's about as good those arguments are.
I didn't call anyone dumb.
You're the one making the insults by coming in and calling anyone not on your side "state pleasers", "knee benders", and "servants of the state". But whatever helps you sleep at night.
If that scares you, then you really don't want to open your eyes. They don't have to go through all that effort if you turn on broadcasts. They do not have to ping anything if you are broadcasting. All they really have to do is wait for you to want to call someone and then you are broadcasting for them. They do not need to send your phone a request to send a signal when you do it for them. Some people even turn on their GPS trackers for their friends and family to see where they are. If you are using your GPS system to plot your course, you are sending the signals yourself.
It is not hard to track someone when you give them toys they want to use that let you track them. If you really do not want the government tracking your movements you need to toss the cell phone registered to your name, and screw having a car that in onstar capable or has it's own GPS. They are fun toys people don't like living without, but that is how they can easily get around laws and privacy concerns if they want to track you. in the end if you are not doing much these things are creepy but not terribly dangerous to you.
perhaps i am not wuite getting it. Draw the picture for me and call me stupid if you will, but that just seems like instructions on the capabilities and use of equipment. Again, I can agree with the argument that restrictions should be applied to the use of drones on US soil, but it doesn't seem to prove that the specific modifications were specially requested as opposed to standard on drones. the intiial article implies some sort of special adaptations to drones that would actually seem like pretty standard equipment for drones used in military combat. Thank you for the attempt at information. i seriously do appreciate a well defined in context version of instructions for the drones as it does bring up different issues, but it still does not give truth to the original article. be aware, my main complain is not the use of drones, but rather the implication that they were specially ordered to do these invasive things when they were actually made to be invasive and now are just being sold for use on US soil. It is more of my complaint with the perversion of the real issue to make it look like a completely different issue for the sake of public outrage which i think could have been more honestly achieved by claiming that war drones were being used for civilian issues. your article confirms my suspicions that drones are capable of far more invasive monitoring techniques, but that our current laws need to address new technology and it's uses rather than simply pretending that one side made a specific request to add these standard items to a invasive object.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?