[RyanAdamas]

Fight fire with fire. Those of us who oppose mechanical oppression will do everything we can to set your dogs against you.

"The Age of Drone Police" is not acceptable, at all. Red line, for complete destabilization. The fact people on this forum seem to be nonchalant over this only shows how detached from reality everyone is becoming, mostly due to massive waves of propaganda and political bullshit creating a never ending stream of "us versus them".

When clearly the US are those subject to drone police actions, while the THEM are foreigners and the 1% who somehow get to dictate the lives we all live without physical consequence or fear.

Anyone who thinks this is just "business as usual" or the never ending procession of progress is truly lost to the world of safety and possessions.

[The5thElephant]

Many people hold values like this that are immediately dismissed once the technology in question can save something or someone they truly hold dear.

I very much understand and share the fears of a surveillance state. I would also throw those fears out the window if it meant a drone could find or track someone who kidnapped my child or loved one (and I can think of many even more horrifying examples).

I think the reality is far from the dystopic panopticon people imagine and also won't be free of occasional abuse or over-enforcement that will likely be mitigated by citizen pushback and regulation. I think people who talk about it the way you do are being quite hyperbolic and don't actually do a good job of swaying people to their argument.

[rexpop]

> won't be free of occasional abuse or over-enforcement

Another way of saying this is that unacceptable tyranny will roll in on a tread of acceptable compromises.

> I very much understand and share the fears of a surveillance state.

I'm not convinced you do, as "over-enforcement" is a totally inadequate term for the extant systemic oppression even organic policing imposes. Have you read The End of Policing, yet, or The New Jim Crow, or even watched the documentary 13th?

> the technology in question can save something

Maybe it can, but maybe so can something else. Something less costly, less constricting. You seem to be under the misapprehension that only surveillance can reduce violence. Well, that's one set of social relations, but can you think of any others?

[The5thElephant]

> Another way of saying this is that unacceptable tyranny will roll in on a tread of acceptable compromises.

That's a very black and white way of looking at things. We have vastly more surveillance today by businesses, governments, AND private individuals on each other. There have been abuses that have been exposed and fought against, there have been exposes due to this surveillance of powerful people who otherwise would not have been discovered in their corruptions or misdeeds. Surveillance is a tool, not just something used by the powerful against the weak. It can and will be used for good and bad.

I am familiar with the arguments made against policing, and agree it needs significant reforms, but don't agree with the approach the defund the police, abolish prisons, and ACAB groups take even if I understand where they are coming from. They are very effective however at making the average person dismiss progressive thinking instead of actually consider their otherwise valid points.

> You seem to be under the misapprehension that only surveillance can reduce violence.

It's not just about violence, and surveillance is only one of many tools a society uses to regulate itself. Can you suggest to me what tool, process, or policy would be able to track down a kidnapper faster than having a few more available cameras would? Nothing after the fact is going to be more effective than knowing where the person was when it happened and where they went.

We can discuss and likely agree on all sorts of policies that can help mitigate violence and social problems BEFORE they happen, but that won't make you feel better when your kid is gone already. What if drones ARE the safe way to improve policing? You get eyes on the scene without a fallible and scared human trained to shoot before thinking.

[rexpop]

> I understand where they are coming from.

I remain unconvinced.

> It's not just about violence... to track down a kidnapper

I hate to be pedantic, but I don't understand by what definition kidnapping is not violence.

> what tool, process, or policy would be able to track down a kidnapper[?]

How about some preventative measures? For context, I believe the gross bulk of kidnappings are by family members, especially estranged parents. This could be remedied by addressing the irrational fears, anxieties, insecurities, and resentments that lead to acts of domestic violence. Such remedies might take the form of mental health courses in schools, or themese incorporated into media. Imagine if, instead of quoting dumb jokes from The Office, we quoted CBT-informed triggers for coping mechanisms that could de-escalate our central nervous arousal and re-target our attention to more productive efforts such as applying for the job which might win us back legal custody.

Edit: I checked. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that approximately 203,000 children a year are abducted by a family member, which accounts for 78% of all child kidnappings in the U.S.

[JamesLeonis]

> Many people hold values like this that are immediately dismissed once the technology in question can save something or someone they truly hold dear.

Has any of this law enforcement and surveillance significantly disrupted the rise of mass/school shootings? If technology is fixing the problem, why are Unsolved Murders at record highs [0]?

> I would also throw those fears out the window if it meant a drone could find or track someone who kidnapped my child or loved one

Won't save them from a school shooter when the cops stand outside for an hour. What's ironic is how many times these mass shooters were "on our radar" before the event, indicating the existing surveillance system worked well enough already. How is more surveillance going to fix this problem, when we already are the most surveilled people in the history of this planet? A better question: Would you even bother to check?

> I think the reality is far from the dystopic panopticon people imagine and also won't be free of occasional abuse or over-enforcement that will likely be mitigated by citizen pushback and regulation.

At the very least, you implicitly assume every person, institution, and all technology behind those efforts work as advertised every time. Even your cop-out disclaimer assumes the natural state is perfection, and anything wrong will eventually balanced back to perfection. Specifically, you assume its brought back into balance by somebody else. Your whole argument is based on this premise. I wonder what regulation came up after Edward Snowden's relevations? Again, better question: Have you checked?

Why yes, your kidnapped loved one will be located when all these stars align! Hopefully they won't shoot the victim (and bystanders) along with the kidnapper [1].

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Miramar_shootout

[TheCleric]

I’d say if you hold a belief that you’d throw out when it benefits you, it’s not a value; it’s a masquerade.

[Unbefleckt]

I don't really understand, how is it different to police cruisers on patrol?

[20after4]

Seriously? For one thing, they are overhead, peeking into people's private property from above.