241–250 of 265 posts
Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have nest cams and doorbell cams. We get very clear pictures of the person stealing packages off of our porch, but local rules (where I live) don’t allow us to apply facial recognition to those pictures to stop the madness.
Try a bomb package. I forget what it’s called, but the moment they lift it a loud-ass alarm goes off and freaks them out. We had the same problem in Seattle and then my wife took care of it with one of those. They never came back. There’s one guy in particular that does a tremendous job making them. I can ask her for details if you’re interested.
Ya, I'm in Ballard and I've thought about decoys and other sort of proactive ways of discouraging this. I wish we could wire up some action when cameras detect someone scoping out our house at 1AM in the morning (we live at the end of a long driveway so it is always someone checking our car door or something).
But with all the data, well, it is the same people who are doing this (it only changes every few months or so), so it seems relatively straight forward for the police to do something about it. But there is no way to aggregate the data from all the cameras everyone has set up to do something about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the argument for federal laws but honestly I think it is misguided to want state laws promoted to a national level immediately. This is how law in the US evolves. The patchwork is a feature. A federal government with the agility to implement this law at a national level would have far too much power. The system is working.
In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc. However, in this case: - The US federal government already has and has used drones as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now includes smaller/cheaper drones. - The US federal government has materially supported the militarization of police forces, including by giving them military equipme…
at a most fundamental level what's debated is if civilians and police should be demilitarized as much as possible or not. Who benefits and who doesn't if all legislation strives for a civic society without deadly force? that's the "Elefant in the room".
The counter-argument to a demilitarized civic society usually is that you couldn't possibly control the bad guys. The empirically sound ground truth is that it takes 1-2 generations to get there, and that you will get there if only you want to get there, as a nation, as evidenced by a number of countries who wanted to essentially get rid of everyday knives and nunchucks and tonfas, let alone firearms, and who in fact essentially did get rid of them.
The US, as a civic society, needs to discuss which kind of a civic society they want to be.
the answer to "shall police have gun drones" flows from that. just like the answer to "shall school students need gun drills".
Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…
Military branches including national guards are exempted from all above, but it’s generally illegal in a modern nation, even some dictatorships, for a military branch to be both an external facing defense force and an internal facing police organization at the same time by mission, as allowing it leads to unrests and coups. So handling of such vehicles and devices can’t be normally outsourced to military.
I think this is just another case of honest but uninformed people adding more and more ad-hoc and redundant laws without enforcement. Not that I oppose the spirit of this particular law though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. Besides the fact that the reduced cost of compliance you mention comes at the expense of the localities freedom to govern themselves, federal laws make it more convenient for these companies to manipulate the system to their advantage. A large company can bribe a couple hun…
> I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
and in fact, it's only large companies that can afford to have a person or team to work through the details, keeping smaller companies out of the market and unable to compete.
The idea of the feds choosing poorly, or being corrupted, and deciding on one set of regulations for everyone scares me sometimes. Health care didn't turn out so great, the ACA put a stop to several states that had interesting plans and implementations of their own, and is basically a subsidy for the health care industry as it currently exists, whose lobbyists apparently crafted the text of that bill. Another example is privacy rights - the feds aren't doing much, and I'm glad that some states are.
Why should I care that companies get uniform laws more than I care about these issues that matter to me?
I'm not saying that we can't have federal regulations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having local regulations even if companies are inconvenienced, especially for evolving industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.
Pretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.
Like maybe the voters would prefer human police officers as opposed to armed drones, even if the drones were cheaper. Or maybe the voters don't want to be tracked by cameras everywhere they go, given how this data can be abused, even if it costs them $x more per year to shop.
Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…
A federal law can only apply to FBI, National Guard, Coast Guard and other federally managed law enforcement bodies. It cannot apply to the various state and county police authorities. Governance of those is a right explicitly granted to each state and county, and the states/counties will fight tooth and nail to retain it.