1
40

[–] stradian 1 points 40 points (+41|-1) ago 

Noble... but ultimately a fruitless effort when you have an administation that won't even respect the sovereignity of other nations. Not to mention the administration's attempts to declaw and muzzle the citizens it serves.

0
2

[–] luckyguy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Won't even respect the sovereigntiy of other nations.

When have western nations ever done that, or any for that mater. It still is important because you can mire police and agencies in lawsuits when they break law. Which is an inconvinience for them and they often do follow the law at times because of that.

0
1

[–] whitewomenarewhores 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Until the police and agencies pay for the lawsuits it doesn't really hurt them at all. So they might have to waste a few dozen man hours on the lawsuit. But so will you, and unlike them you don't get to say "whatever, it's tax money anyway" whenever you're told to chalk up a few million in damages.

0
0

[–] pepepepepe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This has an immediate impact as it would make evidence gathered illegally inadmissible in court. Defense lawyers will give no quarter with laws like this.

I don't even know what the "declaw and muzzle the citizens" comment has to do with this story. I mean it's a certifiable fact but not relevant to the government's internal effort to curb its overreach. This bill only forces law enforcement to get warrants to use flying drones and has nothing to do with the populace at large.

0
7

[–] HowieCameUnglued 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Will be interesting to see who votes which way on this and their justification for doing so. Though I think most senators/representatives will just vote it down without publicly addressing why.

0
5

[–] Typo 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

We need to keep track of people who vote it down. This is an incredibly important issue that will become reality in a few decades or so, if not sooner (my opinion).

0
3

[–] MotherfuckingSausage 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Decades? They're doing it already.

0
2

[–] OcculusResurrectio 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Perhaps his intent for the doomed bill. It would speak volumes if those who vote against get voted out.

0
3

[–] Rakosman 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And then the definition of "surveillance" will get really ambiguous.

0
2

[–] josemon 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not going to happen.

0
0

[–] algidum 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's just for show, Lockheed will never agree to this.

0
0

[–] AlphaWookie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yup the tool is to valuable for law enforcement and it saves a bunch of money for smaller police departments. Also there is tons of civilian applications especially for business.

1
1

[–] Rellik88 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I have no problem with them at our borders.

0
0

[–] AlphaWookie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Drones will be very important law enforcement and it has tons of applications for civilian uses especially in business.

0
0

[–] RedLeader 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm still voting for him. Don't tell me I can't.

0
0

[–] Aoteamerica 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well I mean surely it's cheaper that paying those FBI pilots to fly those planes all over the country taking aerial photography. It's just economics.

Turned out all those crackheads were right about the planes spying on us... Goddammit.

0
0

[–] the_spectre 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

...which will not pass.

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)