Armed Drone Caught On Camera Outside Chicago Prior To NATO Summit (video)

:rolleyes: What I said.

Yes, and you're wrong. They can collect foreign intelligence, not they believe you are involved in foreign intelligence. If I have a microphone placed in the United States, and I hear you talking in Mexico, I can record it if I follow all the stipulations in that paragraph. That's what that is saying.


The government is the one who determines whether or not it is a "domestic activity". You and your buddy Ahmed go on a camping trip and the government decides Ahmed is a foreign intelligence agent, so now they can spy on you based on your own interpretation of the articles I linked to. Then as the predator drone is spying on you and Ahmed, the "inadvertently" pick up intel on someone else nearby. They've got 90 days before they have to get rid of it. Those are the facts. You're just playing obfuscation games.

Those aren't even vaguely the facts. That's just some bullshit that you made up to fit what you believe the policy says, despite what the policy actually says. Just like you wanted to believe that the Air Force was operating drones, and so you did, despite the fact that in the very same article it says that the drones are owned and operated by the Border Patrol.

Unless your camping trip with Ahmed is in Pakistan, the Air Force cannot collect intelligence about your camping trip.
 
EVERYTHING IN SECTION 9 DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH COLLECTING OF INFORMATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! DOMALAIS YOU ARE SO BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Those are maps, you asshole. :rolleyes: Yes, the Air Force can use Google Maps. You fucking caught me.

Try reading the policy yourself instead of ctrl-f and searching for scary words. It's not that long, and you'll be done in no time. I'll answer any questions if you find anything confusing or super scary.
 
Last edited:
Those are maps, you asshole. :rolleyes: Yes, the Air Force can use Google Maps.

Not true.

9. Domestic Imagery. Air Force components may, at times, require newly collected or archived domestic imagery to perform certain missions. Domestic imagery is defined as any imagery collected by satellite (national or commercial) and airborne platforms that cover the land areas of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the US, to a 12 nautical mile seaward limit of these land areas.

9.1. Collecting information on specific targets inside the US raises policy and legal concerns that require careful consideration, analysis and coordination with legal counsel. Therefore, Air Force components should use domestic imagery only when there is a justifiable need to do so, and then only IAW EO 12333, the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, DoD
10 AFI14-104 23 April 2012

5240.1-R, and this instruction. The following generally constitute legally valid requirements for domestic imagery:

9.1.1. Natural Disasters. Locations in support of government planning for, emergency response to, or recovery from events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, fires, and other natural disasters.

9.1.2. Counterintelligence, Force Protection, and Security-related Vulnerability Assessments. Requirements in support of critical infrastructure analysis on federal or private property where consent has been obtained as appropriate.

9.1.3. Environmental Studies. Requirements in support of studies of wildlife, geologic features, or forestation, or similar scientific, agricultural, or environmental studies not related to regulatory or law enforcement actions.

9.1.4. Exercise, Training, Testing, or Navigational Purposes. Requirements for imagery coverage in support of system or satellite calibration, sensor evaluation, algorithm or analytical developments and training or weapon systems development or training..


That's far more than "Google Maps". And where do you think Google Maps get's their imagery from? Of course the U.S. spying on its own people with satellites is not new. This part is.

9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.

9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.

9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.


Again sections 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 are within section 9 so again this is talking about data being collected by Air Force planes and UAVs within the United States!

I must thank you though. The next time I have to argue with some government bootlicking shill I will know exactly where to go in the document and not have to rely on the Wired article. Anyone with half a brain who's followed this conversation now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government has admitted to allowing the Air Force to collect image information using planes and unmanned drones of American people provided they are deemed to be somehow involved in "foreign intelligence" or if the information is collected "inadvertently" (again within the United States) as long as the Air Force (supposedly) gets rid of the data within 90 days.
 
Last edited:
Those are maps, you asshole.

More than maps.
And you really believe that shit?

or are you just trying to sell that bullshit here?

So which agency do you work for?

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

and you are trying to sell that shit here?
 
More than maps.


So which agency do you work for?

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

and you are trying to sell that shit here?


+rep.

Dedicated to all the government shills.

 
Not true.

K.

That's far more than "Google Maps". And where do you think Google Maps get's their imagery from?

These companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tele_Atlas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalglobe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_Dettwiler


Of course the U.S. spying on its own people with satellites is not new. This part is.

Did you read all of it or just the bold parts?


as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.


There's also the fact that this section is not exempt from paragraph 11, collection, which I've covered in great detail throughout this thread.


Anyone with half a brain who's followed this conversation now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government has admitted to allowing the Air Force to collect image information using planes and unmanned drones of American people provided they are deemed to be somehow involved in "foreign intelligence" or if the information is collected "inadvertently" (again within the United States) as long as the Air Force (supposedly) gets rid of the data within 90 days.

So you still content that the government wrote a policy restricting them from doing things in order to secretly do those things? Why not just... not write the policy?
 
So which agency do you work for?

The Department of Retard Reproduction Prevention. DeRRP. We identify retards via the internet, then use HAARP to open a hole in the ozone above their houses until the cosmic rays sterilize them.

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

K.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

K.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Oh, there's definitely a connection. Liaison officers, mostly.


Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

Let me know when they move the DoD under Homeland Security.


and you are trying to sell that shit here?

Please. If I was paid to troll you (Dear NSA overlords, please pay me to troll on the internet. I'm cheap.), or to make government look good, or to discredit supporters of liberty, the best possible thing I could do would be to post all sorts of baseless conspiracy nonsense all over this site 24/7. That would have far more of an effect than posting rational, fact-based information in a rational way.
 
The Department of Retard Reproduction Prevention. DeRRP. We identify retards via the internet, then use HAARP to open a hole in the ozone above their houses until the cosmic rays sterilize them.
You know,, I got my first infraction calling someone what he was.

Please. If I was paid to troll you (Dear NSA overlords, please pay me to troll on the internet. I'm cheap.), or to make government look good, or to discredit supporters of liberty, the best possible thing I could do would be to post all sorts of baseless conspiracy nonsense all over this site 24/7. That would have far more of an effect than posting rational, fact-based information in a rational way.

Then why don't you try? Instead of regurgitating bullshit party line..Attempting to tell us what they can't do,,,
Attempting to give the impression that they would even follow the old rules that they set up themselves..(when they have proven time and again that they will change, ignore or break the rules any time they damn well please.)

And coupled with a bunch of new laws that pretty much allow them to do anything they please. If they say national security. or terrorist.

Yeah,, why don't you try? rational, fact-based information?

There are Drones. They are being flown over the US. By both Government agencies and foreign interests.

They Should Not Be There
 
There are drones, being operated by the government, and they should not be there.


They are not being operated by the military.


They are being operated by DHS.


This is an important distinction.
 
Did you read all of it or just the bold parts?

:rolleyes: The whole thing. Including the parts from section 11. And I explained why that's not as comforting as you pretend it to be. You flat out lied when you claimed this was about collection of data outside the U.S.

There's also the fact that this section is not exempt from paragraph 11, collection, which I've covered in great detail throughout this thread.

That's why section 11 contains this part.
11.2. Collection. Information about US persons may be collected if it falls within one or more of the thirteen categories of information specified in DoD 5240.1-R, Procedure 2.
11.2.1. Information is considered “collected” only when it has been received for use by an employee of an intelligence component in the course of official duties. Data acquired by electronic means is “collected” only when it has been processed into intelligible form.
11.2.2. Temporary Retention. Information inadvertently received about US persons may be kept temporarily, for a period not to exceed 90 days, solely for the purpose of determining whether that information may be collected under the provisions of Procedure 2, DoD 5240.1-R and permanently retained under the provisions of Procedure 3, DoD 5240.1-R. If there is any doubt as to whether the US person information may be collected and permanently retained, the receiving unit should seek advice through the chain of command, Judge Advocate General (JAG), or IO monitor. The unit/MAJCOM IO Monitor must provide assistance in rendering collectability determinations. When appropriate, assistance may be requested from AF/A2. A determination on whether information is collectible must be made within 90 days.


So you still content that the government wrote a policy restricting them from doing things in order to secretly do those things? Why not just... not write the policy?

A catch all provision for when they get caught? Such provisions seem to work for people like you.
 
There are drones, being operated by the government, and they should not be there.


They are not being operated by the military.


They are being operated by DHS.


This is an important distinction.

That is NO FUCKING DISTINCTION

Not one damn bit of difference.
 
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft.

Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.

The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.

“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.

The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.

Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.


“When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.”

The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments.

“We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC.

Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed.

“I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.”

McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone.

“We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.”

But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones.

“The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/
 
So the Air Force wrote a policy for themselves that said that they couldn't do something, and restricted access to that policy from the general public... for what purpose? Hoping that maybe someday someone would leak it?
Forgive me for not following the entire thread in detail, but which particular policy are you referring to here? Evidently public access to it has not been restricted if you know about it. If it's said to have been leaked, then yes, it's entirely possible that the "leak" was intentional for disinformation purposes.

Sound far-fetched? Go read about Operation Northwoods or the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" and then tell me the US government doesn't engage in deliberate public deception.

Even if at some point the Air Force wrote a good-faith policy prohibiting the use of its drones for random surveillance of Americans, that is hardly a guarantee against a later decision to ignore that policy. Laws and rules are just words on paper. They're made by men, and what men have made, men can unmake.
 
Back
Top