[jngreenlee]

Look I don't love these ether, but:

"A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no legal violations were found"

"the Pentagon established interim guidance in 2006 governing when and whether the unmanned aircraft could be used domestically. The interim policy allowed spy drones to be used for homeland defense purposes in the U.S. and to assist civil authorities."

[newman314]

That's something that really sets me off; the hiding behind the umbrella of "well, that's legal"

Just because something is legal or some twisted definition thereof (eg waterboarding is not torture) does not mean that it's right. And for people of power to hide behind the guise of legality is so often not sufficiently called out and deterred.

[unchocked]

Sure, but it's hard to make the case that using aerial surveillance to assist in lawful arrest operations is "not right". Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern. To which branch of government it belongs may be of ethical concern, but I think such concern is better described as "legalistic".

[newman314]

So at a micro level, this may seem like a good idea. I believe we need considering such activities in a larger context.

For example, there have been multiple laws passed/proposed in various countries because "think of the children" or "terrorism". The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 and passed in a hurry. To the point, where the original architect of the act now regrets his actions [1]. Or the fact that the act is now overwhelming used for prosecuting drug activities instead of its original intended purpose [2].

> "Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern"

I would disagree with this statement. It's the difference between a police stakeout and them planting a webcam [3].

I repeatedly stress at work to people involved with big data projects that want to advance the notion of a data lake. "Just because we can does not mean that we should". I'm not convinced that the legal route is sufficient to check such activity and is why I'm a proponent of systems that prevent bad actors from intercepting (zero knowledge?) instead of "we promise not to look" solutions.

I'll end with:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[1] http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-w...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/...

[3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na...

[unchocked]

The article talks about less than 20 missions over a 9 year period. This is hardly mass surveillance and it's disingenuous to suggest it is simply because the platform was unmanned. I'll add that it's detrimental to the quality of discussion we enjoy here on HN to conclude such hyperbole with a holocaust reference.

I think all of us on HN are familiar with the qualitative effects of "big data" both in general and as it pertains to surveillance. I hope we're all sophisticated enough to realize that the issues at hand revolve around scale, probable cause, and data retention/mining, rather than the canard of whether the platform involved was manned or unmanned.

[newman314]

My original comment did not mention anything about manned vs. unmanned. I was merely responding to your claim that it does not make a difference which I do not agree with.

As to your statement that it's <20 over 9 years, at the risk of sounding a little tin-foilish, but that's what is publicly being admitted to.

Such activities always start small. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...

[gohrt]

1. The people who investigated it believe it is right.

2. The people who investigated it believe is is legal.

What more do you want from them?

[Retric]

Waterboarding is considered torture.

[TillE]

Not according to John Yoo.

[jonathankoren]

Ahh Berkeley. The city cares about making a stand about nonexistent space based nuclear weapons, but when there's a war criminal among their midsts...

[gr3yh47]

>and to assist civil authorities.

disgusting how broad that is, almost anything could be under that umbrella

[VLM]

There's could be, which is of course anything, and is known to be, which AFAIK is only JSOC aka the folks in charge of seal team 6 and delta force, lately of the drone attacks in the middle east, etc.

The Sec Defense can make available for "expert advice" and "training" and stuff like that, and that's what JSOC operates under. AFAIK they're the only army command running under those rules on a continuous basis.

Note that the Army does bust active duty MPs for doing things off base.

Another rarely understood part of the Posse Comitatus act is a state governor can do anything he wants inside his own state with NG / ANG troops. Its only when they're federalized or operating outside their state that they can't enforce laws. NG troops can "pretty much" do anything their governor orders them to do within their state borders. The active, reserve, and guard components are at least sometimes deeply intermeshed. Would not surprise me for a guard pilot to casually be called an "army dude" by a journalist with no military experience (aka all of them)

[olivermarks]

If you believe that you'll believe anything...

[ceejayoz]

The ACLU doesn't tend to toe the government's line. In general, them saying "looks legit" is a pretty good sign.