Eyes over Compton: How police spied on a whole city

[naomi 343]

Article

 

One thing I'm confused about is the wording of small civilian aircraft vs. drone. ...Are these 'unmanned aerial vehicles' that shouldn't be called drones?

 

Great comment:

I think that the issue becomes, in the end, that there is a fairly substantial constituency who are more afraid of criminal victimization than they are of the erosion of civil liberties. I have met people who have expressed a willingness to allow the authorities to see into their bedroom windows, their pools and their showers, because "they have nothing to fear, because they aren't doing anything wrong." Of course, they are also convinced that the authorities can keep their information secure, and that their understanding of "aren't doing anything wrong" will always align with that of the government. But, beyond that, because they view submission to the surveillance state as a way of proving their good citizen bona fides, they are suspicious of anyone who expresses concerns, and thus, would oppose limits on the system to preserve civil liberties. (Although they would likely not understand their own liberties to be eroded.)

In the end, this is really a question of faith, and like many questions of faith, people on opposite sides of the issue tend to quickly fall to doubting each other's thoughtfulness, good intentions or sanity.

[Voltaire 4,558]

 

Article

 

One thing I'm confused about is the wording of small civilian aircraft vs. drone. ...Are these 'unmanned aerial vehicles' that shouldn't be called drones?

 

Great comment:

I think that the issue becomes, in the end, that there is a fairly substantial constituency who are more afraid of criminal victimization than they are of the erosion of civil liberties. I have met people who have expressed a willingness to allow the authorities to see into their bedroom windows, their pools and their showers, because "they have nothing to fear, because they aren't doing anything wrong." Of course, they are also convinced that the authorities can keep their information secure, and that their understanding of "aren't doing anything wrong" will always align with that of the government. But, beyond that, because they view submission to the surveillance state as a way of proving their good citizen bona fides, they are suspicious of anyone who expresses concerns, and thus, would oppose limits on the system to preserve civil liberties. (Although they would likely not understand their own liberties to be eroded.)

In the end, this is really a question of faith, and like many questions of faith, people on opposite sides of the issue tend to quickly fall to doubting each other's thoughtfulness, good intentions or sanity.

 

I don't see that quote. As a matter of fact the story tells explicitly the opposite, they can't see into bedroom windows, pools or showers (I'm not sure why they can't see into pools - I'm just quoting the guy in the story)

[crackattack 513]

Is this much different then police helicopters? Outside of the size of the surveillance, I don't see much difference? Just my opinion though.

[frank 2,144]

See, I don't give a , that's the problem

I see a motherfuckin cop I don't dodge him

[naomi 343]

I don't see that quote. As a matter of fact the story tells explicitly the opposite, they can't see into bedroom windows, pools or showers (I'm not sure why they can't see into pools - I'm just quoting the guy in the story)

 

That was a comment posted on the open discussion of the article. The police guy noted how it can't see into those places...that poster is just explaining the mindset of willingness to accept surveillance there too.

[frank 2,144]

I don't see that quote. As a matter of fact the story tells explicitly the opposite, they can't see into bedroom windows, pools or showers (I'm not sure why they can't see into pools - I'm just quoting the guy in the story)

Logic 101

 

Premise 1

Premise 2

 

Conclusion: pools in Compton would be empty dummy.

[naomi 343]

Is this much different then police helicopters? Outside of the size of the surveillance, I don't see much difference? Just my opinion though.

 

Police helicopters are usually dispatched because a criminal or potentially criminal situation is at hand. This affords and records (police can look back and check out areas they hadn't been watching) much more focused and expansive views for ongoing surveillance.

[crackattack 513]

 

Police helicopters are usually dispatched because a criminal or potentially criminal situation is at hand. This affords and records (police can look back and check out areas they hadn't been watching) much more focused and expansive views for ongoing surveillance.

Got it. Well, I guess I wouldn't care. Out in public at least. I believe if you're not breaking the law, you got nothing to worry about. If they want to watch me, so be it. They might get bored though.

[Voltaire 4,558]

Is this much different then police helicopters? Outside of the size of the surveillance, I don't see much difference? Just my opinion though.

Itf you click through the link, drones are not only far, far superior to police helicopters but also much cheaper to maintain.

[5-Points 2,729]

Is this much different then police helicopters? Outside of the size of the surveillance, I don't see much difference? Just my opinion though.

Most times you'll notice a helicopter hovering overhead. Not so with a drone. People who choose to engage in certain behavior in the "privacy" of their own backyard may choose to not engage in that behavior if they knew somebody was watching. Drones allow a certain level of secrecy that helicopters do not.

[crackattack 513]

Most times you'll notice a helicopter hovering overhead. Not so with a drone. People who choose to engage in certain behavior in the "privacy" of their own backyard may choose to not engage in that behavior if they knew somebody was watching. Drones allow a certain level of secrecy that helicopters do not.

I got it.I guess people need to be careful with what they do in the "privacy" of their own backyard.

[5-Points 2,729]

I got it.I guess people need to be careful with what they do in the "privacy" of their own backyard.

I think that's the crux of the issue. If I'm on my property, not breaking any laws, who gave the city the authority to surveil me?

[crackattack 513]

I think that's the crux of the issue. If I'm on my property, not breaking any laws, who gave the city the authority to surveil me?

No argument here. It's one of those slippery slope issues. People who are breaking the law versus those who aren't.

[NewbieJr 540]

The way I look at it is, I highly doubt that the government has the resources or interest to watch me grill a burger or mow my lawn. Therefore, I'm quite sure I don't have to worry about drones spying on me.

[crackattack 513]

The way I look at it is, I highly doubt that the government has the resources or interest to watch me grill a burger or mow my lawn. Therefore, I'm quite sure I don't have to worry about drones spying on me.

That's kinda how I see this also. If they want to watch me, then so be it. They'll change the channel pretty quick.

[RLLD 3,455]

It might be wise to consider that when a police officer is looking you over, engaging you in any way, it is not to help you. That police officer is graded on his ability to arrest people, his future and promotion potential is directly correlated to his performance in arresting people. These guys are not your friend, they are not out to help you so much as to find a reason to put cuffs on you and take you in.

 

Best advice is to be respectful, politely decline ANY search EVERY TIME. Again, they are not going to care if one of your idiot friends left something illegal in your house or car, the oly thing that matters is that they get another punch in their promotion card. In short, they will fock you, that is their business. But always be polite and respectful, that is job 1, then if you can have witnesses you are in luck, its far likely that they will avoid violating your civil rights if people are watching.

[naomi 343]

The way I look at it is, I highly doubt that the government has the resources or interest to watch me grill a burger or mow my lawn. Therefore, I'm quite sure I don't have to worry about drones spying on me.

 

Because of where we're at technologically increased surveillance is inevitable. Civil liberty ethics aside, we're naturally going to become more of a police state, especially if we lay down as policy becomes more questionable, because we know we're not doing anything wrong...presently.

 

This tool doesn't worry me. Lack of perspective in recognizing that it's always better that citizenry watch law enforcement policy, speak up about it, scrutinize it, act like you recognize that their power is granted by the people, is where a problem comes in. This department kept it on the down low because public opinion, in their minds, shouldn't steer whether they got to experiment with it or not.