Eye in the Sky

[woodchip]

Anyone here concerned about all the proposed uses of drones to keep us honest (upwards of 30,000 drones)? And now Google wants to make use of military grade satellites to peek at us. Way back when Bush was proposing listening in on cell calls originating from out of country there was a huge hue and cry. Now with the govt and Google being able to see you stealing a kiss from your girl/boy friend at the family barbecue there is nary a peep.

[Spidey]

I wish the Philly Police would replace those god awful anti-sleep machines (helicopters) with a nice quiet satellite.

[CUDA]

Anyone here concerned about all the proposed uses of drones to keep us honest (upwards of 30,000 drones)? And now Google wants to make use of military grade satellites to peek at us. Way back when Bush was proposing listening in on cell calls originating from out of country there was a huge hue and cry. Now with the govt and Google being able to see you stealing a kiss from your girl/boy friend at the family barbecue there is nary a peep.

of course not. MSNBC, CNN, and the likes, want this guy re-elected so they wont report it.
and how about Axlerod saying we need to create more private sector jobs like Teachers, Police and Fire-Department. why am I not surprised he doesn't know the difference
or even Raul Castro's Daughter coming out with her support for Obama, now there's a ringing endorsement

[Tunnelcat]

Weird, the Google Street View car just happened to drive by my little house in my little private neighborhood, TODAY. Now I'll probably be on Street View, which might happen to show me standing at the window looking back. At least I wasn't out mowing my lawn in my grubbies when they happened by.

[woodchip]

Once again you wonder why our country keeps getting further into debt:

"The Homeland Security Department ordered so many drones it can’t keep them all flying and doesn’t have a good plan for how to use them, according to a new audit that the department’s inspector general released Monday."

[Tunnelcat]

And you don't think Romney is going to do anything different if elected? The military industrial complex is who's now running things in the U.S. and the Republicans always gave the military carte blanc for anything they want, all in the name of defense. If the military has the ability to wholesale spy on anyone they want, it makes their job easier. They aren't ever going to give that up now. So screw the poor slaving public, just buy more weapons to keep them safe in their hovels.

By the way, debt didn't matter when Bush stared his 2 wars AND began wholesale spying on Americans. Obama, unfortunately, kept going with what Bush started. I don't think changing the guard is going to alter things at all. Our choices really SUCK.

[snoopy]

Weird, the Google Street View car just happened to drive by my little house in my little private neighborhood, TODAY. Now I'll probably be on Street View, which might happen to show me standing at the window looking back. At least I wasn't out mowing my lawn in my grubbies when they happened by.

People's ability to drive by my house is why I actually don't have all that much of an issue with the drones/satellites, at least in a urban/suburban setting.

Drones/Satellites don't really increase the visibility that they have... they just have it a bit more conveniently now. A police car has always been able to go driving down your street, looking for suspicious behavior.

I have a bit more of a problem with the cell phone/internet snooping. That's increased visibility. I'd especially be strongly opposed to a ban on encryption, because I see encryption as the internet equivalent to closing my blind when I don't want people seeing into my house.

Now... I happen to know about research that's being done on radars that can see through your walls into your house - once they get it perfected, they'll probably be able to create images of the interior of your house similar to the way that the new airport scanners make nekkid pictures of you. (FYI - they have a lot more trouble getting through aluminum/steel siding.) That I don't like either, because now I can't close my blinds.

[CUDA]

The military industrial complex is who's now running things in the U.S.

WAITnow I'm confused. I thought Wall Street was running the country

[Tunnelcat]

The military industrial complex is who's now running things in the U.S.

WAITnow I'm confused. I thought Wall Street was running the country

And they are. Since the military has been largely privatized, think about the massive profits that all those private contractors get. You know that Wall Street demands profit, so if those contractors want continued growth and profits, they need to have unending war after war after war.................. Why do you think those 2 wars of Bush's have cost us billions of tax dollars? A large chunk of that went just for profits (God only knows how much too). Certainly not to the pay of the average government plebe soldier. Now a private mercenary, that's where the money is.

[Cuda68]

The military industrial complex is who's now running things in the U.S.

WAITnow I'm confused. I thought Wall Street was running the country

The military industrial complex is a front for Wall Street.

[Sergeant Thorne]

People's ability to drive by my house is why I actually don't have all that much of an issue with the drones/satellites, at least in a urban/suburban setting.

Drones/Satellites don't really increase the visibility that they have... they just have it a bit more conveniently now. A police car has always been able to go driving down your street, looking for suspicious behavior.

That's not a good comparison, Snoopy. A drone would be closer to just having a cop drive by, except it would have to be a cop with cameras mounted all over his car keeping record of everything going on. When it comes to satellite it could be closer to having cops sitting in a car on your street watching you as you go about your business. A lone police officer, or even a couple of individual police officers can't perpetrate a meaningful invasion of your privacy, because they don't have time to do so. A system that's automated enough could have all the time in the world. I've said that I believe Google will have a hand in dealing with the obvious logistical problems of an effective police state. When you have cameras on you 24/7, and A.I. tracking your violations or profiling you, the hardware (drones, satellites) takes on new significance.

[callmeslick]

Anyone here concerned about all the proposed uses of drones to keep us honest (upwards of 30,000 drones)? And now Google wants to make use of military grade satellites to peek at us. Way back when Bush was proposing listening in on cell calls originating from out of country there was a huge hue and cry. Now with the govt and Google being able to see you stealing a kiss from your girl/boy friend at the family barbecue there is nary a peep.

of course not. MSNBC, CNN, and the likes, want this guy re-elected so they wont report it.
and how about Axlerod saying we need to create more private sector jobs like Teachers, Police and Fire-Department. why am I not surprised he doesn't know the difference
or even Raul Castro's Daughter coming out with her support for Obama, now there's a ringing endorsement

more blind Obama-hate. Thought you were a bigger man, or at least one willing to see nuance better. How do you like the prospect of Romney, who has a long-proven track record of being anything his handlers want him to be, selling his soul to a narrow, big money elite? Think that will work out well for you?

[Tunnelcat]

Romney has no principles. He goes wherever the political winds blow or does whatever someone tells him to do. He hasn't stuck to one position long enough for people to know what his stance is on anything, even with his own healthcare law. He's not his own man. He's a puppet and king of the flip floppers. He puffs up his chest and thumps it like a he-man, but we'll never reliably know what he'll do once he's in office unless it happens. He's an unknown entity, EXCEPT when it comes to padding his and his cronies bank accounts. We know what he'll be doing then. Setting up the tax code to benefit himself and business interests. If corporate interests decide they need to spy on Americans to improve marketing databases, he'll put his stamp of approval on it.

[CUDA]

more blind Obama-hate.

rates right up there with your blind Obama loyalty.

Thought you were a bigger man,

big enough not to question someone manhood because I disagree with them. so apparently I'm a bigger man than you. because this is now the fourth time you've resorted to personal attacks when you didn't like something I said. debate my ideas all you want. making personal attacks well........

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6][

or at least one willing to see nuance better. How do you like the prospect of Romney, who has a long-proven track record of being anything his handlers want him to be, selling his soul to a narrow, big money elite? Think that will work out well for you?

changed the subject huh. you can't address the issues so lets change the subject. I make observations and you say I don't understand the nuances??? do you understand the meaning of the word?? nuances of what??? lies and distortions???

of course not. MSNBC, CNN, and the likes, want this guy re-elected so they wont report it.

FACT... so is your blind loyalty showing? or can you not see the truth?

and how about Axlerod saying we need to create more private sector jobs like Teachers, Police and Fire-Department. why am I not surprised he doesn't know the difference

are you saying you don't know the difference either or is it just your blind loyalty that wont let you admit it?

or even Raul Castro's Daughter coming out with her support for Obama, now there's a ringing endorsement

I guess you missed the "NUANCE" of what many have called our first communist president being supported by the family of a communist dictator

[CUDA]

Romney has no principles.

and Obama does?!?!?!?!?

but we'll never reliably know what he'll do once he's in office unless it happens. He's an unknown entity,

you mean like the way things were when our current President was elected??? and yet you voted for anyways.

EXCEPT when it comes to padding his and his cronies bank accounts.

you mean like the current President did with his cronies?

We know what he'll be doing then. Setting up the tax code to benefit himself and business interests.

you mean like the current President is doing??

[Tunnelcat]

SO YOU WANT TO ELECT ANOTHER VERSION OF THE SAME THING, ONLY WORSE? Someone who would DEFINITELY cement in perpetuity the American New Plutocracy? No way in hell. At least I know where Obama stands right now, which is that he doesn't keep all his promises, but at least he HAS kept a few of them. But Romney's so unprincipled and coddled with wealth, he would be the perfect puppet for corporate America.

I'm not fond of Obama and I will probably hold my nose and vote for him come November, but I really dislike Romney. Even the Republicans are holding their noses with their candidate. This whole upcoming election is a choice between worse and worser in my opinion. What a waste this election is going be.

The American people probably aren't going to fall in love with Mitt Romney.

And EVEN if he chooses a woman as his veep pick, it'll just prove that he's desperate and trying anything to suck up to the women vote. Not gonna float Mr. Romney.

[CUDA]

SO YOU WANT TO ELECT ANOTHER VERSION OF THE SAME THING, ONLY WORSE?

worse by who's standards??? your dislike for anyone from the right? or are you comparing him to a man that had only 2 years (barely) as a senator with no other experience in any form of leadership. or a man that was in charge at a very successful company. organized and ran the LA Olympics, and was chief executive of the state of Massachusetts. you cannot compare the two men for their qualifications to get elected. Romney is far more qualified than Obama was and still is.

[Sergeant Thorne]

tunnelcat--every time you fight Romney you're clearly doing it from Obama's corner. I think you're buying a bad deal. Holding your nose and voting for anyone who's just another part of the problem is committing yourself to the problem--a broken/hijacked system. I wouldn't vote for Romney to keep Obama out of office, and I really don't like Obama. IMO better the enemy we know, because they're both it. Personally I think Obama will lose, and I think it's going to happen only because it will keep people busy both defending and attacking a new President. Romney's policies will be somewhat different, but if you step back and look at the bigger picture you would see certain areas ratcheting forward, while the ones that most people fixate about simply swing back and forth from Democrat to Republican in order to keep Gooberman happy (hehe, low-blow--where is Goob?).

This is not a prediction, because I don't claim to totally grasp the significance of it, but maybe something to consider--what new and disturbing aspects of Obama's presidency will persist if/when Romney or another Republican takes office? Czars?

[flip]

I personally am voting for Obama because of Hillary Clinton and the respect I have for her husband. I know it's not much, but you can tell from photos he and Hillary don't see eye to eye and I also see genuine concern in her eyes at these meetings. I strongly suspect that Romney will do just as Thorne just said, surround his self with the like-minded.

[Tunnelcat]

Both of you, CUDA and ST can't see the forest for the trees. How can you say Romney would be a good president when he hasn't held a firm opinion on anything ever since he became a politician? First he was he was for abortion before he was against it, then he was against Reagan before he was for Reagan's policies, then he was for a health care mandate before he was against it now. He's even flipped on gun issues and tax pledges. I mean, how do you even know what this guy stands for in his principles? Frankly, I don't think he even has any. The only thing I know positively is that he will make sure his offshore bank accounts never get audited, or taxed by the feds. He's proud to be an American, but he sure can't be bothered to even give one tenth of his wealth to help pay for it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald- ... 012-1?op=1

EJ Dionne has a book out that categorizes what the problem is today with Americans. Yes, he's a liberal, but he makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. This country was founded as a community. The Constitution even starts out as "We the People", not "I the people". What we're seeing now in our politics and in about half of the populace is the "I" trying to stomp out the "We", or the community. I see Romney as an "I" person, and definitely not the personality type good to be the president for a "community" nation.

[Sergeant Thorne]

How can you say Romney would be a good president ...

ineversaidthat

I'm certain Romney wouldn't deal with any of the real problems facing our country, and I'm pretty sure he would continue where Obama left off in some of the worst ways possible. Beyond that you can pretty much pick your flavor. Both are literal and ideological sellouts paying nothing but lip service to the constitution. If the constitution matters to you then you know what not to do at the voting booth. If it doesn't then you should probably kiss the country you never knew goodbye, and go rot your brain with a reality show that at least takes place on a tropical island.

[CUDA]

Both of you, CUDA and ST can't see the forest for the trees. How can you say Romney would be a good president when he hasn't held a firm opinion on anything ever since he became a politician?

and yet you voted for Obama. why all the sudden a need to have a President that doesn't change his stance on an issue?? maybe because he's not from your party and now you choose to hold him to a different standard???

but he sure can't be bothered to even give one tenth of his wealth to help pay for it.

you do realize that "IF" Obama raises taxes on those making over $259K a year that that influx in taxes will fund the Government for a whopping 8 days. TC it's called class warfare and you know it. there is NO WAY that raising taxes on the rich can solve the debt problems this country has. it is not possible.. stop listening to the lies.

Dionne has a book out that categorizes what the problem is today with Americans. Yes, he's a liberal, but he makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. This country was founded as a community. The Constitution even starts out as "We the People", not "I the people". What we're seeing now in our politics and in about half of the populace is the "I" trying to stomp out the "We", or the community. I see Romney as an "I" person, and definitely not the personality type good to be the president for a "community" nation.

I agree with him he right, TO A POINT but the problem with fully accepting that stance, is those same people have a "we" mentality when it comes to personal responsibility. they say "I don't need to make right choices" "I don't need to be responsible for my actions" , " We the people will give me what I want" instead of saying we AS a people need to do the right things personally.. our founding fathers took a PERSONAL stand against a repressive government.for the betterment of WE the people. our current government is also repressive,and with the most recent SCOTUS ruling I believe even more than we will realize. can you say frog in boiling water. are you willing to take a stand against it?

In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.

[Tunnelcat]

CUDA, for you to read and invariably flame back at me about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/busin ... wanted=all

ST, IMHO, a vote for Romney is also a vote for destroying the country. If Romney's elected, the corporations will be happy campers, start the wads of cash flowing that they've been sitting on for a few years because they'll no longer be "worried" and "uncertain" a Democrat will remain as president for the next 4 years and magically make those now scarce new jobs "appear" out of thin air because they had them all along because they really want to get the hell out of a corrupt China but were "waiting" until they had brought down wages in the U.S. and had a "friendly" president in office. Oh, things will look good for a short while, but the working poor and middle class will suffer permanently in the long term. Choose your poison. Besides, few people actually like this guy.

http://prospect.org/article/no-one-likes-mitt-romney

[Sergeant Thorne]

Gonna have to bow out. The partisan politics trying in vain not to be partisan politics is making me ill. You go ahead and stick with your Democrats. I'd say you'll be sorry, but I don't think you'll be aware enough to be sorry--you'll still be blaming someone. I insist that this country return to individual liberty and constitutionality if it's going to have my support. Anyone else is a naive idealistic sell-out who believes the lie that says that politics must be what politicians and our government have made of it. I didn't vote for the change that requires the death of classical/constitutional America in order to birth the ideal they've dressed up, and it's pretty obvious from all of the misinformation and lies that the ideal isn't something we would choose if it were presented in an up-front manner. Damn them all, and to hell with your half-truth babblings, steeped in objective-flavored koolaid. Good day.

ST, IMHO, a vote for Romney is also a vote for destroying the country.

So don't vote for the son-of-a-★■◆●.

[flip]

and it's pretty obvious from all of the misinformation and lies that the ideal isn't something we would choose if it were presented in an up-front manner.

That's the damn truth.

[Tunnelcat]

So you think voting for Romney, who's entire strategy is to do the polar opposite of Obama like a spoiled child, is going to return us to your idea of constitutional and individual liberty and solve all our problems in one fell swoop? Think again. His idea of fixing the student loan crisis is to go back to the old system before Obama changed it. That would add billions to our already ballooning national debt. Like I said, he is unprincipled knee-jerk reactionary, and full of lame ideas that the only purpose of which is to enrich the already rich and himself.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-09/p ... -companies

If the Republicans succeed in fulfilling their dream of instituting the 2 Santa Clauses Theory, we're screwed as a Democracy, or even a Republic, mark my words. Suckers.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

[Sergeant Thorne]

tunnelcat, I think you're projecting a degree of partisan play-acting. Mark my words: I don't want Romney in office. I don't want Obama in office either. You see how that works? I don't have to choose either side!

I plan to vote for Ron Paul.

I've heard people say that "a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama", and I'm sure there are Democrats saying that a vote for third party might let Romney into office. Even if either of these is the end result, the truth is they're looking at it wrong. Voting third party may leave me marginalized by the gullible masses that couldn't count past two unless they take their shoes off, but how does adding to the problem create a solution? No, I don't believe voting for Romney will return us to constitutional government. I believe that people with no desire to uphold the constitution--who are sworn-in to uphold the constitution--should be deemed intelligible for the office. I believe we should talk with people and persuade people of these facts, and ultimately change the political nature of our country for the better, instead of being co-opted into a system where we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

[Foil]

I've heard people say that "a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama", and I'm sure there are Democrats saying that a vote for third party might let Romney into office. Even if either of these is the end result, the truth is they're looking at it wrong.

Well said!

I get the sense that "neither of the above" is a growing sentiment again this year. I don't think it will be enough to affect the upcoming election, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a really strong third-party candidate in 2016.

[Tunnelcat]

tunnelcat, I think you're projecting a degree of partisan play-acting. Mark my words: I don't want Romney in office. I don't want Obama in office either. You see how that works? I don't have to choose either side!

I plan to vote for Ron Paul.

Good for you. The way you were talking, it sounded like Romney was a viable choice for you. However, being a liberal-leaning woman, I can't stomach Ron Paul, and if supporters think he's the New Reagan, there's definitely no way in hell I can cast a vote for him. I wish we really had a better principled Dem running in 2012 than Obama.

However, I really can't wait for the Republican Convention. The Ron Paul Supporters are fixin' for a fight. It might get very entertaining, kind of like the 1968 Democratic Convention.

[Jeff250]

I've heard people say that "a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama"

Technically, it's only half as bad as it sounds. It takes *two* Republicans' votes for a third party to vote for Obama. A Republican switching from Romney to Obama creates a vote difference of two between Romney and Obama, one taken away from Romney and one given to Obama, but a Republican switching to a third party creates a vote difference of only one, one taken away from Romney but none given to Obama. (The argument for Democrats voting third party is analogous.)

In all seriousness though, judging by most Ron Paul supporters I know, they would actually vote for Obama over Romney if forced to choose between the two, including myself. This could be because I live in a blue state and belong to a younger demographic. But it's not clear to me that Ron Paul is hurting the Republicans more than the Democrats. I think he's going to hurt them both about just as much.

I'm planning on voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee, though. He actually has a record for getting things done, and, as far as I can tell, Ron Paul has no plans for running past the Republican nomination.

[snoopy]

That's not a good comparison, Snoopy. A drone would be closer to just having a cop drive by, except it would have to be a cop with cameras mounted all over his car keeping record of everything going on. When it comes to satellite it could be closer to having cops sitting in a car on your street watching you as you go about your business. A lone police officer, or even a couple of individual police officers can't perpetrate a meaningful invasion of your privacy, because they don't have time to do so. A system that's automated enough could have all the time in the world. I've said that I believe Google will have a hand in dealing with the obvious logistical problems of an effective police state. When you have cameras on you 24/7, and A.I. tracking your violations or profiling you, the hardware (drones, satellites) takes on new significance.

I think we're still making the same argument. Maybe instead of "a bit" I should have said "a lot." I will extend to add neighbors along with passing police. If you think about a suburban neighborhood occupied with people who have a typical level of curiosity/nosiness and are willing to call the cops, I don't see much of a difference. My argument is that any activity that's visible from the street has fundamentally been subject to observation and has also been admissible in court for a long time. The consistency of the coverage may be increased by drones and satellites, but normal visible spectrum cameras don't change the fundamental level of information available to the courts.

When I do have an issue is when the level of information available to the courts increases. Wiretapping laws are supposed to be all about that... and I think that internet usage and phone usage should be subject to similar wire tapping restrictions. Likewise, technology that can see through curtains/walls/roofs are a bigger deal, in my opinion, because what you thought was a privacy barrier ceases to be so.