|
|
 |
Report this Comment
Use this form to report the
selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally
be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.
 |
| 11. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Feb 15, 2013, 10:57 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 10:46:
Verno wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 10:24:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 10:04:
Here’s the drone the county sheriff wants to fly over your backyard. I have no problem with this. The law says you have no expectation of privacy outside of your cartilage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage) - anything outside of the walls of your home is considered NOT PRIVATE. Anyone at anytime can "walk through your yard"....yea, those NO TRESPASSING signs....yea about those.... What the law says and what will happen when someone does that are two very different things. Also I don't want CCTVs and an overhead drone fleet watching my every movement, if that doesn't scream governmental abuse then I don't know what will. Instruments of control need to be applied very carefully on society as a whole, less is more.
The locals here priced it out to 8k a unit for the drones they wanted (which apparently have some form of rudimentary IR mapping) and did some "creative" budgeting to make it work, thankfully the town shut down the funding.
Now if people want to deploy drones for surgical strikes on patent trolls, that's something I can get behind This ^ It's not like cops follow laws all the time either, just look at that Chris Dorner incident. There's no reason to have drones patrolling US skies, 1984 here we come, won't be long now, they just need to succeed in taking all the guns away first. What did they do wrong there? I mean, other than the shooting random people in pickup trucks, and pretty much everything else. But what, did they do that wouldn't hold up in court had they taken Dorner alive? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.