Rand Paul. The issue of who controls these drones and has access to the data they collect is of deep concern. The multinational company Google Just recently settled a law suit over their Google maps divisions’ data collection during their street level collection.
The suit was based on Google’s use of data they acquired via recording devices while they drove around the country gathering everything from phone conversations to computer passwords. Who stops the drones from only collecting on the warranted Individuals?These are pieces of technology used by our pay agencies and military to actually look through walls Vela thermal Imaging and ultra-sensitive listening devices which can hear your most personal conversations. How will the unwarranted material collected be handled? Will It still be subject to review and used against citizens? The notion that these drones will be a safer means of collection is in agreement everywhere, it removes individuals such as informants wearing wires from harm’s way and allows our law enforcement agencies to view locations for possible danger before attempting to serve criminal warrants.
The question becomes are your civil liberties being violated with information being gathered as the drone passes over your location? 2. Are drones a violation of due process? From the earliest days of conversation In the United States it has been debated what Is said In private between individuals Is a right not to be infringed upon. From the sitting by people and eavesdropping to the wire taps viewed so negatively during the tumultuous time of the says.Yet our supreme court has ruled that some criminal activities are only possible to be discovered and prosecuted through these means, ND have given our law enforcement access to this tool of prosecution.
Drones are simply our next advancement in technology that is needed to counter criminal’s use of advanced technology such as throw away prepaid cell phones. Our law enforcement arm also needs to move forward with the criminal element. As the creativity of the criminal element advances so must law enforcements ability to find and bring to Justice.The true issue of due process however comes in when they talk of using predator type Drones on U. S. Soil or against U. S.
Citizens abroad. These are the missile carrying weapons platforms used with such effectiveness against terrorist In foreign countries. When an American whether here or abroad Is targeted for elongation without the due process afforded under or constitution we have begun a slide down a slippery slope of god dome. Who becomes the watch dog of proper and ethical use against our own? Are we so willing to prosecute and president or his designed be given that power?And who will protect against misuse of such a power? 3. The use of drones may exploit some gray areas in the law and within citizens’ rights. Currently citizens are being targeted by our military and C. I.
A. In countries such as Yemen and Pakistan. Even though polls show we support suspected terrorists being targeted by 65 % that number drops to 41% when that person is a U. S. Citizen. While the targeting of “military combatants ” is legal, the view of killing American citizens even if involved in terrorist activities is still perceived as protected under our constitutional rights.Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky recently engaged in a filibuster in protest of the current administration’s refusal to disclose Rene usage within our borders.
Congressional leaders have been pushing the administration for months to reveal details of how potential targets were chosen with limited success. Although some documentation has been released to select individuals others have complained about being refused access to information. This is a classic platform for ethic’s violations by limiting the amount of people who know they limit the possibility for oversight. . Recommendations for Government use of Drone Aircraft. What would be the effect on our public spaces, and our society as whole? If everyone felt the keen eye of the government on their backs whenever they ventured outdoors? Psychologists have repeatedly found that people who are being observed tend to behave differently, and make different decisions, than when they are not being watched. This effect is so great that a recent study found that “merely hanging up posters of staring human eyes is enough to significantly change people’s behavior.
The UCLA recommends at a minimum the following core measures are enacted to ensure that this happens: ; Usage restrictions. Save should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that their use does not eviscerate the privacy that Americans have traditionally enjoyed and rightly expect. Innocent Americans should not have to worry that their activities will be scrutinized by drones. To this end, the use of drones should be prohibited for indiscriminate mass surveillance, for example, or for spying based on First Amendment-protected activities.In general, drones should not be deployed except: where there are specific and articulated grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a pacific instance of criminal wrongdoing or, if the drone will intrude upon reasonable expectations of privacy, where the government has obtained a warrant based on probable cause; or where there is a geographically confined, time-limited emergency situation in which particular individuals’ lives are at risk, such as a fire, hostage crisis, or person lost in the wilderness; Save are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power, like all government power, needs to be subject to checks and balances. For reasonable non-law enforcement purposes by non-law enforcement agencies, where privacy will not be substantially affected, such as geological inspections or environmental surveys, and where the surveillance will not be used for secondary law enforcement purposes. Image retention restrictions.
Images of identifiable individuals captured by aerial surveillance technologies should not be retained or shared unless there is reasonable suspicion that the images contain evidence of criminal activity or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or pending criminal trial. ; Public notice. Explicit and written, and should made public. While it is legitimate for the police to keep the details of particular investigations confidential, policy decisions regarding overall deployment policies-?including the privacy tradeoffs they may entail-?are a public matter that should be openly discussed. ; Democratic control.