Originally posted by Indigo5
"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul
said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a
policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on
everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I agree with Sen. Paul on this.
The distinction is not the technology used.
The distinction is "What is acceptable behavior by law enforcement?"
Anything that we deem as a society as acceptable for law enforcement to do, they should be able to do with current technology.
Anything that we deem as a society unacceptable for law enforcement to do, they should not be allowed to skirt the prohibition via technology.
A police officer can't come check you out in your hot tub unless he has probable cause / imminent threat / warrant / etc. And that officer
shouldn't be able to just fly a drone over your house to get around those restrictions.
But if you are running around shooting people in the street, the police are going to shoot back. It's pretty irrelevant if they use a drone or a
I say this while also being vehemently opposed to drone strikes on U.S. citizens generally and drone surveillance.
The counterpoint, I think, is that allowing the use of a drone in situations where otherwise an agent of the government would be required to
personally pull the trigger is that it abstracts the killing process and therefore renders it more likely that the agent will use deadly force. I
think that is a valid point. How do you address it?
Maybe limit drones to less-than-lethal ordinance and weaponry.
Maybe put escalated training and review in place for drone enforcement activities over human enforcement activities.
I think the core of the issue is one of due process. When an officer of the law shoots a suspect who is an imminent threat, that officer's judgement
is a form of due process. If the drone makes the officer less likely to use their best judgement, then the use of the drone makes it more likely that
a suspect's due process will be violated.
To solve the problem, you need to figure out how to maximize the judgement demands of the drone operator (which should be a goal anyways for someone
legally-authorized to use deadly force in dangerous situations).