simple idea, until the law can catch up with the technology there's a
gaping hole that can be exploited. It happened with telephones and the
telegraph, so the same works with modern tech.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> This is what I do not understand.
>
> Why are they approvi
Because the decision to approve the use of new technology is largely
budgetary in nature, so generally an easier decision than the complex
discussion that has to go into a well thought out approach to
balancing privacy concerns with law enforcement efficacy. When "the
good guys" say that they'll u
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Vivec wrote:
> Why are they approving the use of new technology, without also changing
> the laws governing rights to privacy and civil rights to include these
> new technologies?
> Why rush ahead to update one and leave the other languishing or untouched?
If y
This is what I do not understand.
Why are they approving the use of new technology, without also changing the
laws governing rights to privacy and civil rights to include these new
technologies?
Why rush ahead to update one and leave the other languishing or untouched?
On 30 May 2012 11:46, Juda
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Helicopters, however, are pretty visible and audible and they aren't
> able to keep the same place in surveillance for 20 hours on end.
> Pretty significant difference in scope there.
True, but closer than a car. Unless you're talking abo
I think most people have objections to that as well.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:39 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Use of drones inthe US
just trying to understand the boundaries of acceptable use here. What
Helicopters, however, are pretty visible and audible and they aren't
able to keep the same place in surveillance for 20 hours on end.
Pretty significant difference in scope there.
Judah
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, LRS Scout wr
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
> As am I.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of them either.
Fair enough. I find a helicopter to be a much closer comparable to drones
then a ground unit.
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Ad
As am I.
I'm not a huge fan of them either.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> > The cop can't see over your fence?
> >
> > The cop doesn't have IR/UV/Thermal vision?
>
>
> I am pretty sure that Atlanta's PD helic
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
> The cop can't see over your fence?
>
> The cop doesn't have IR/UV/Thermal vision?
I am pretty sure that Atlanta's PD helicopter has all of these capabilities.
-Cameron
...
~~
I agree with that, and I have seen some stories about them in national
parks and the like.
They would dry up quick enough if we could get some common sense drug laws
on the books, or even just reschedule marijuana.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Grow operations on pu
Grow operations on public lands with booby traps and armed guards
should be illegal. That's the problem we have with forests in Oregon,
at least. But, yes, in general I agree with you that growing shouldn't
be illegal.
Judah
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:56 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> I don't think i
Much more eloquent than I could hope to be.
Thanks.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
> >
> > that makes sense. the person in their back yard has a reasonable sense
> > of privacy. Now what if its a rape or murde
I don't think it's right on any level, not even to find grow operations,
which shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> just trying to understand the boundaries of acceptable use here. What
> you're mentioning is similar to the police u
say cheese...
> >
> >
> > It's some of the same concerns people bring up about having cameras on
> > every street corner. Big brother is watching.
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
> > Sent:
The cop can't see over your fence?
The cop doesn't have IR/UV/Thermal vision?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> what's the difference between a drone flying about and a cop on the beat?
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
> >
> > I would personally sa
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> that makes sense. the person in their back yard has a reasonable sense
> of privacy. Now what if its a rape or murder?
The crime, to me, does not matter. It's the judicial approval process
(or general lack there of). You could have a cop
just trying to understand the boundaries of acceptable use here. What
you're mentioning is similar to the police using IR systems to
discover grow operations. I could be wrong about this but my flawed
memory says that such a system was OK to use. In that case dones are
just a logical extension.
O
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> that makes sense. the person in their back yard has a reasonable sense
> of privacy. Now what if its a rape or murder?
>
Cops don't care about rape and murder, only drugs and national security.
~~
gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:33 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Use of drones inthe US
>
>
> what's the difference between a drone flying about and a cop on the beat?
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>>
>> I would pe
Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:33 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Use of drones inthe US
what's the difference between a drone flying about and a cop on the beat?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> I would pe
Didn't you see the episode of Harry's Law where she shot one down because it
was spying on the wrong house? They had a court case about using the drone
to find the teacher making porn movies to help her income since teaching
doesn't pay much.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Roberts [mailto:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> what's the difference between a drone flying about and a cop on the beat?
>
The drones are looking for Sarah Connor?
It's a little eerie, actually, the similarity to some of these drones and
the flying death robots from Skynet.
~~
what's the difference between a drone flying about and a cop on the beat?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> I would personally say it raises 4th amendment issues.
>
> I'd be interested to know if any of these platforms contain SIGINT gear as
> well.
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 a
I would personally say it raises 4th amendment issues.
I'd be interested to know if any of these platforms contain SIGINT gear as
well.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> So what's the issue?
>
>
>
~|
Or
building full of people.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:sor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:04 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Use of drones inthe US
So what's the issue?
~|
Order the
So what's the issue?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid
27 matches
Mail list logo
