

Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance - stfu
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/232489-sen-paul-proposes-bill-protecting-americans-from-drone-surveillance

======
tzs
Some things that would be banned under this bill:

• using a drone to patrol the freeway looking for drunk drivers (well,
technically they could use a drone to look but they would not be able to send
a ground officer to cite the drunk driver),

• using a drone to track the getaway car from a bank robbery,

• searching for a child who has been taken without authorization by a non-
custodial parent.

In the first example, a drone COULD be used to patrol the freeway looking for
disabled cars or accidents, but if any criminal activity were observed during
such patrols the evidence from the drone could not be used against the
criminals.

This is typical Rand Paul--it is designed to sound good and make it look like
he is looked out for The People on some important issue, but the bill is
written to be so overly broad that it won't have much chance of actually
passing--which I suspect is fine with Paul.

Another example of that was an amendment he tried that would have made it so
that former Congressmen who become lobbyists lose their benefits. Sounds like
a good idea, right? Of course it does--but then when you check the details you
find that "lobbyist" is defined so broadly as to include anyone who gets money
from the Federal government or gets money by working for someone who gets
money from the Federal government.

For instance, if a former Congressman is a physician, and after leaving
Congress goes to work at a rural medical clinic--and that clinic accepts
payments from Medicare, that physician would be a lobbyist under Rand Paul's
amendment and would lose his benefits.

Of course that amendment went nowhere, but now Paul can paint himself if he
wishes as a guy who tried to fight the corrupting influence of former
Congressman becoming lobbyists.

~~~
maratd
I don't want _civilian_ police forces using _military_ equipment for _any_
reason. It's really that simple.

Rand Paul gets it.

~~~
tzs
Drones are no more military equipment than are guns, cars, and radios. All of
those are equipment that is used both by civilians and by the military.

~~~
maratd
If your local police force started chasing after people using tanks, then
well, tanks would no longer be military equipment.

Military equipment is any equipment that is predominantly used by the military
and not so much by anybody else.

Drones are primarily used by the military. They are military equipment. If
they start getting used by local police forces left and right, well, they
would no longer be military equipment. And that would be unfortunate.

~~~
tptacek
"Drone" is just a colloquialism for "unmanned aircraft".

"Tank" is a word that means "armored vehicle, likely fitted with heavy arms".

So the problem with your comments here are simple as far as I can tell:

There is a nationwide problem of police forces _using tanks_ as part of SWAT
operations, and of manufacturers of what are effectively tanks starting to
tailor products to police forces. This militarization of our police forces is
a real problem and worth talking about.

But wow do you ever muddy the waters when you suggest that a straightforward
technological advance --- small, remote-controlled unmanned aircraft --- must
clearly be "military" because its first widely-known use was by the military.

There are already civilian drones. Drones were used during Fukushima to
monitor radiation above the burning reactors. Energy companies apparently use
them to monitor marine mammals in offshore drilling.

You are on extraordinarily shaky ground when you attempt to paint "law
enforcement UAVs" with the "hellfire missile" brush. I think you should let
this point go.

~~~
Retric
SWAT (special weapons and tactics) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT> is
specifically a group of police officers trained to use military weapons and
tactics. They do use APC's
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier>) but don't use
'tanks' because they don't fight people in armored vehicles.

PS: What separates tanks from APC's tank's are designed to be artillery pieces
(aka Cannon) which can move while protecting their gun crew. Where an APC's
goal is to transport infantry. It may have some built in armaments but it's
more effective for people to get out when the fighting starts. This compares
to a howitzer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1> which is designed to be far
enough from enemy lines that while it may be mobile it does not need to
protect it's crew.

------
noonespecial
I think looking too closely at "drones" in particular just makes the problem
more obscured. What we are really dealing with is that technology in general
is making surveillance so easy that police have started using it to go out
looking for crimes to prosecute. When you add that together with a convoluted
law system that criminalizes a great deal of the ordinary behavior of citizens
and relies heavily on selective enforcement, you have a recipe for some
serious abuses.

------
chad_oliver
Now how about a bill protecting _humans_ from drone surveillance? This is like
a bill that says 'torture is okay, as long as you don't torture US citizens'.
I don't have any strong opinion about the moral correctness of drone
surveillance, but if you admit that it's not good enough for your constituents
...

~~~
drcube
Stop making sense. Next you'll start on about how people should be able to
work, vote and run for office regardless of which patch of dirt their mothers
delivered them on.

Turning away brown people from our shores and then slaughtering them in other
countries is my God-given right as an American.

------
tbeseda
The discussion around the use of drones lately has risen out of the revelation
that the EPA is using them to surveil cattle ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa to
enforce the Clean Water Act ([http://news.yahoo.com/epa-drones-spy-farmers-
nebraska-iowa-1...](http://news.yahoo.com/epa-drones-spy-farmers-nebraska-
iowa-150411579.html)).

The recent panic around unmanned surveillance seems odd to me given the
excellent quality of imagery from low-orbit satellites that have been around
for much longer.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The problem here is that it's 100% certain that this technology is going to be
used for 24/7 surveillance in major cities. It's guaranteed. It's a _giant_
leap forward in surveillance.

------
patrickod
So US citizens will be afforded greater protection while foreign citizens
living in the US will be possibly subjected to yet further scrutiny? Human
rights seem to vary greatly on your nationality and it seems that the divide
grows year on year.

~~~
AutoCorrect
the Constitution was written to protect the Citizens of the country.

------
mikemarotti
I wasn't even aware this was happening. Frightening stuff.

------
Alex3917
I doubt this will pass. Many have speculated that Rand is angling for the VP
nomination by positioning himself as Romney's biggest competitor for 2016 (if
Romney wins), meaning that nominating him as VP would be a smart way to take
out his biggest competitor. He has been doing a bunch of things like this
lately in order to raise his own profile.

~~~
nirvana
Quite possibly you're right on both accounts. The interesting thing to me is
that drones on domestic soil (and the TSA, another one of Rand's issues) has
been around for years. Any politician could have made it an issue and
introduced legislation along these lines at any point in time, and would have
raised their profile in doing so.

But they didn't. They've been silent. Where's the legislation to repeal the
PATRIOT ACT? I didn't see any, but instead its been expanded and extended.

Why isn't [pick-your-favorite-politician] vowing to take a stand against these
evil things?

I wish Rand doing this were not at all news because there were 200+ people on
capital hill raising similar issues and taking a stand against violations of
people's rights.

~~~
saryant
Rand did give a pretty good speech against the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT the
last time it was up for a vote. I think it was about two years ago.

------
mrspandex
I understand that drones make aerial surveillance much cheaper and easier, but
why specify drone surveillance and not aerial surveillance in general?

It bothers me that there is such a fear around drones. Please remember that
many people would like to use them for far less nefarious purposes - real
estate photography, farming, etc.

~~~
mtgx
They could just pass a bill saying the Government is not allowed to use drone
surveillance, and they can't get private companies to do it for them either.

Otherwise companies (and people?) are allowed to use drones.

------
Tichy
If I remember correctly, the US just released a virus into the wild that is
designed to collect all information it can possibly gather about anyone. How
credible does that make any privacy protection laws?

------
scotty79
> ... would require the government to obtain a warrant to use drones with the
> exception of .... or when there are risks of a terrorist attack.

Great now police will have to invent more terrorists to do their jobs as
efficiently as allowed by modern technology.

> t would prohibit evidence collected with warrantless drone surveillance from
> being used as evidence in court

That might lead one to funny case one day when they will have to let murder
loose because there is no evidence except footage from police drone
accidentally passing by. Everyone will forget about OJ.

------
ericingram
I support this

------
oinksoft
Best of luck to him, but this really isn't Hacker News (flagged).

------
gm
Trying really, really hard not to make a sarcastic comment about the gov't
protecting Americans from itself...

