21–30 of 80 posts
"By 2020, about 30,000 unmanned drones are expected to be deployed in the United States for the purpose of surveillance and law enforcement"
I read this article a few days ago about WAMI technology, and I wasn't remotely aware of how advanced drone surveillance tech is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food? And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food? And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
Terrorism which is exacerbated by our own shadowy geopolitical agendas...
And it's ludicrous to say "We shall have a mass surveillance system or mass terrorism!", as if security theater revealed the actual effectiveness of such actions!
Do you love giving Leviathan the sword it stabs you with, the whip that scourages you, and the mouth which mocks your humanity?
How many are arrested because of mass surveillance captures the person criticizing Trump / Obama, Or the Republican / Democratic party?
If you want clues to who they really are insidious look at Cointelpro and how the police will incite peaceful gatherings into mobs to justify shutting them down and killing people.
You can stand on a soapbox and criticize until you are blue in the face, but try to make an active difference and you will be murdered like the Black Panthers.
"By 2020, about 30,000 unmanned drones are expected to be deployed in the United States for the purpose of surveillance and law enforcement"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police kills more people in the USA then all terrorists combined (about 1000/year).
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
Mass surveillance is a bipartisan effort. Electing a Democrat to the White House is very unlikely to change this situation. The Obama administration went above and beyond any prior presidency in its aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers to these unconstitutional activities.
FWIW, the language in Fourth Amendment is pretty clear:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What's happening now is the very antithesis of probably cause. And everyone is the target.
The worst part of all is that zero credible evidence has been presented that a single terrorist attack has been prevented by mass surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food? And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
So it's worth it to you to spend 100's of billions to stop 30 hypothetical deaths? Ok. You're allowed to have that opinion. I'll vote against it every chance I get.
In this environment will meaningful[1] political action even be possible?
[1] Meaningful as in: outside of what the government deems "permissible".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food? And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
We don't have another 911 because it was a tactic that could work exactly once. No pilot/crew/passengers would stand idly by and hope things work out in another plane hijacking because they expect they're dead either way.