Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrizzlyAdamz]

But how much of it can stick? Do these alleged photos/videos show any faces? Just how different from circumstantial evidence is that exif data? Same with the social media- would that stick or could they claim they didn't type what they did? There's a difference between knowing who did it and being able to prove it.

[GlyphGryph]

From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.

[Scelly9]

From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.

...

THE. FUCK.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Hmm, when did they make these statements? IF it was in her lifetime, she may not have wanted to prosecute- how much of that tape would have to be shown to the court?
No idea how the law works in canada- is there some reason they wouldn't be able to try the cameraman if they went after the others first?

[Nadaka]

From what I understand, the video was of the act and faces were clear, but I don't know for sure, having not sought it out myself.

Authorities claimed they couldn't act on it since they didn't know who was behind the camera.

...

THE. FUCK.

Probably because they were only going to go after the kiddie porn conviction instead of rape/sexual assault.

[SalmonGod]

Sealing the final holes in the blanket of the surveillance state.

[Skyrunner]

That's scary.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Then make a donation to the ACLU- they're fighting it right now.
-edit
Assuming you're American..

[palsch]

If anyone still gives a damn;

CISPA passed the House. It was heavily watered down with from the original form (see this for a somewhat conservative take on some of the modifications) but there was still a presidential veto threat issued.

Of course it's hard to say what the Senate are going to get up to in this area, let alone what (if any) bill will get to Obama. But still, that happened.

[GlyphGryph]

I actually don't have much of a problem with surveillance drones. While they certainly need regulation they undoubtedly do not have yet, I think the most thing here is equability. Like with any other surveillance, the real danger comes from the fact the imbalance of power they can generate.

I think it's incredibly important that we insure that the right of people, individuals, to own and operate their own drones, is paramount. For some strange reason, I don't expect the police drones to be looking when the police are fucking someone over, and I think the idea of having my own, personal drone, following me around 24/7 keeping an eye on me and extending my own opportunities to see and explore safely is pretty awesome and immensely valuable.

I'm just worried about surveillance becoming a privilege, not about it existing.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ha, the sponsor calls the veto threat "flabbergasting".

Eh, thing I heard was concerning 'airspace' 7' above someone's backyard. It isn't practical to hover a helicopter 3 feet away from a second-story window, but it is with a drone.

Private drone operation would require additional stuff though- licensing and zoning restrictions. We don't want 30 pound drones rocketing into roadways. Harassment would also become a problem.. if you want video of yourself when you go out and about just wear one o them small cameras we've got nowadays.

I for one would want a minimum elevation/operational floor where the things can't go, (500 feet arbitrarily, but would have to be based on something concrete and hard to change in the drone (sound? quiet drones get around that! Distracting drivers? Smaller drones!)) and ubiquitous electronic record keeping, (flight controls/instrument readouts etc).

[GlyphGryph]

We don't want 30 pound drones rocketing into roadways. Harassment would also become a problem.. if you want video of yourself when you go out and about just wear one o them small cameras we've got nowadays.

I don't see how these problems would be solved by licensing or zoning, rather than good regulation (and licensing is NOT the same as regulation, esp. in this case). I do agree that laws against drone harassment are probably inevitable, and that's fine.

Finally, if you're wearing the camera you can not use it to take video of yourself... Unless you've got one of those crazy ass elevated harnesses, I suppose. Which let's be honest will get you kicked out of everywhere, while your drone could easily idle up in the sky outside.

[SalmonGod]

The problem is surveillance grants more utility to authorities than it does to the public.

I've mentioned plenty often that it's easy to identify anyone as a criminal due to vaguely written laws and flexibility of interpretation.  A private person with their own drone may be able to protect themselves from false accusations, but they won't be able to protect themselves from easily abusable laws.  It also won't protect them from being placed on an FBI watchlist (which automatically results in compromised rights) for doing something perfectly legal, such as being identified on camera in proximity of a protest.  Surveillance greatly amplifies the power of authority figures by broadening their tactical knowledge and options.  Most importantly, it gives them the ability to easily pinpoint and target dissent.

A private person does not gain any comparable utility.  There is the ability to clear one's name of false accusations, but that is a very minor protection and not even a reliable one, since your footage can be confiscated "as evidence" and then conveniently lost.  Private surveillance can be turned back on authority, but this once again presupposes that punishment can be enacted against an agent of authority with the same ease and severity as an ordinary member of the public when caught doing wrong.  For example: police getting paid leaves for actions that would put anyone else in prison.

Not that I want to focus on police or the government, because corporations abuse surveillance as well.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Gotta say, that begs the question: why do you want to run surveillance on yourself? The camera would do a better job on all fronts here- you could keep it on you everywhere.

Licensing & zoning are regs. Zoning as in you can't take it near parks, (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!), busy streets, indoors, public buildings etc etc; these were just examples. We'd actually need a plethora of laws and limitations, concerning things from time of operation to the specific makeup of the drone components. Point is, easier said than done. Also: pay off might be a little low for the effort, especially when we already have concealable cameras that would do the same job in a more discrete fashion- so long as that job is continual self-protection..where a drone would be useful, (offensively, though things like photography are special cases), would be HIGHLY regulated because those are where people get in trouble, (harassment/snooping/endangerment etc).

-edit incoming, getting this out before more posts.
Again, camera is still useful- upload to the cloud as you go, electronic copies are hard to 'lose'.

[palsch]

One thing that is interesting; there are already at least some regulations that cover drones.

When Lawfare decided to have a friendly drone smackdown - a national security geek version of Robot Wars in the air - the FAA got in touch to warn them they couldn't fly drones in the D.C. Flight Restricted Zone. They still held the competition by driving out to some undisclosed field outside the zone (which sadly prevented protesters from finding them, which would have been hilarious), but these things are on the regulatory radar.

Figuratively speaking at least.