Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Senator Warns Against Political Surveillance By Drone

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the eyes-in-the-skies dept.

Privacy 150

cold fjord writes "Politico reports, 'Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she once found a drone peeking into the window of her home — the kind of cautionary tale she wants lawmakers to consider as they look at allowing commercial drone use. ... she used the episode to implore lawmakers to "proceed with caution." Feinstein said she encountered the flying robot while a demonstration was taking place outside her house. She said she went to the window to peek out — and "there was a drone right there at the window looking out at me." ... "Obviously the pilot of the drone had some surprise because the drone wheeled around and crashed ..." she said. ... Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that she has seen firsthand the surveillance capabilities of drones and called civilian privacy concerns "significant." She ... recommended a search warrant requirement. Feinstein said she is working on legislation with the Commerce Committee and urged senators to move swiftly to create "strong, binding enforceable privacy policies that govern drone operations before the technology is upon us."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Isn't that cute (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986723)

She doesn't like it when it happens to her.

Re:Isn't that cute (5, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#45986799)

So Feinstein

urged senators to move swiftly to create "strong, binding enforceable privacy policies that govern drone operations before the technology is upon us.

This is such undiluted hypocrisy, given her reaction to the Snowden saga. It would be funny, if it was not so very sad.

Re:Isn't that cute (5, Insightful)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 9 months ago | (#45987415)

For politicos like Feinstein, their Party or their alleged philosophical beliefs are as illuminating to their decision process as the logos on a NASCAR jacket. She says whatever sounds the most reasonable and responsible and occasionally stamps her feet and waves her arms and does the least to trouble the status quo as possible.

Meanwhile she makes money investing in military related stocks, and builds a portfolio based on insider knowledge (as is legal for all Senators) and retires much wealthier than when she entered office. Rinse and repeat with the next political opportunist.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

SylvesterTheCat (321686) | about 9 months ago | (#45987907)

..and builds a portfolio based on insider knowledge (as is legal for all Senators) and retires much wealthier than when she entered office.

If anyone wants to be thoroughly disgusted by Congress's insider information, read the book titled "Throw Them All Out."

Recall (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about 9 months ago | (#45988499)

When is California going to recall her?

Re:Recall (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45988925)

When is California going to recall her?

Given her uber-wealthy backers and the overall ideological tilt of California?

They'll likely keep sending her embalmed corpse back to DC each term for approximately the next 600 years or so.

Re:Recall (2)

morgauxo (974071) | about 9 months ago | (#45989021)

That would be quite an improvement. Probably better than them electing a new one actually!

Re:Recall (1)

Zordak (123132) | about 9 months ago | (#45989047)

When is California going to recall her?

Given her uber-wealthy backers and the overall ideological tilt of California?

They'll likely keep sending her embalmed corpse back to DC each term for approximately the next 600 years or so.

This may not be a bad thing. As long as they don't find a way to reanimate her, she'll have to keep her mouth shut and won't be able to vote on anything. I'd call that an epic win.

Re:Isn't that cute (5, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 9 months ago | (#45988635)

You forgot to mention her stance that only the government can define who a journalist is. So in her worldview, citizen journalism and blogging is not covered under the first amendment of freedom of the press. Ya, she's a real fascist piece of work! The more you research who this women is, the more worried you should be.

http://watchdog.org/100682/feinstein-wants-to-limit-who-can-be-a-journalist/ [watchdog.org]

Re:Isn't that cute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45989403)

The more you research who this women is, the more worried you should be.

Oh my god - there's more than one of her?!

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 9 months ago | (#45987445)

After her admission, one cannot help but wonder if peeping toms the world over are not weeping for joy of this new technology?

Re:Isn't that cute (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 9 months ago | (#45987449)

This is such undiluted hypocrisy, given her reaction to the Snowden saga. It would be funny, if it was not so very sad.

Very true. But I am still changing my will so I will be buried with my ice skates. Hell has frozen over. Diane Feinstein has finally found an expansion of government authoritarianism that she is unwilling to support. Wow.

hypocrisy? (4, Insightful)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 9 months ago | (#45987469)

It's not hypocracy if her position is consistantly that the elite and rich defense contractors (doesn't her husband own much of URS) are above the law, and everyone else must bow before them.

Her legislation could say "only senators, former senators, people with over $100 million, and defense contractors can use drones to spy on others" -- and it wouldn't be hypocracy. It'd just be evil.

Re:Isn't that cute (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 9 months ago | (#45987745)

I was just gonna say, someone should bug her house and visibly tap her phone line, and maybe she'll make a quick about-face on that too.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 9 months ago | (#45988903)

If you think that's hypocrisy you should probably know about how she has a concealed carry permit despite being the most vocal anti-gun politician in the US.

One law for us, a different law for them.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

mwehle (2491950) | about 9 months ago | (#45989149)

If you think that's hypocrisy you should probably know about how she has a concealed carry permit despite being the most vocal anti-gun politician in the US.

One law for us, a different law for them.

There are numerous articles stating she used to have a concealed carry permit but no longer does, for instance http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore [thehill.com] . Do you have more recent information that she is again carrying?

Re:Isn't that cute (4, Insightful)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 9 months ago | (#45987013)

From Mad Magazine around 1970: When United States wants to know activities of other countries, we employ intelligence agents. When another country does the same to us, we accuse them of using spies.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 9 months ago | (#45987155)

Not unique to the USA. In pretty much every country, they use a nice, sanitized word to distinguish THEIR spies from the ones used by other countries against them.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 9 months ago | (#45987275)

In pretty much every country, they use a nice, sanitized word to distinguish THEIR spies from the ones used by other countries against them.

Not true in the UK. Much of the recent discussions regarding allowing MI5 and MI6 to exceed speed limits clearly referred to the UK's agents as "spies". But then, the UK has James Bond, so it's a little different!

Re:Isn't that cute (2)

superdave80 (1226592) | about 9 months ago | (#45988481)

Just wait till they come out with their new version, MI7! The MI6.4 patch was a little buggy for my taste.

Re:Isn't that cute (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45987169)

You could update that today: When a CIA spy is caught and imprisoned in a country like Iran or North Korea, he's a hostage being held by a brutal terrorist regime. When a North Korean or Iranian spy comes to the U.S. and gets caught and imprisoned, he's a terrorist enemy combatant who must be detained indefinitely for national security.

Re:Isn't that cute (5, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#45987105)

Just like her stance on gun control-- fine as long as she gets an exception.

She's the master of special pleading.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

failedlogic (627314) | about 9 months ago | (#45987347)

"She's the master of special pleading." ..... Very true indeed.

This is a video of her in the 80s or 90s about her owning a gun ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bLKagYBuI [youtube.com]

OF COURSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987753)

She is part of the special chosen tribe of Gods Pets(TM)! Rules for the filthy goyim don't apply to GODS PETS.

Re:Isn't that cute (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 9 months ago | (#45987163)

It would be a real shame if a bunch of other stuff she legislated were to happen to her too.

Re:Isn't that cute (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987281)

It doesn't matter. Your fucking country is doomed anyway. Now I'm officially rooting for the terrorists. I hope they obliterate all of you. I'm sick of your ugly county and it's people. Just die already.

Re:Isn't that cute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45989453)

Well that escalated quickly. Maybe if the terrorists didn't give the damned nutbars an excuse to keep being crazy we wouldn't be in this mess. Ever think of that? This is all the terrorists fault.

Re:Isn't that cute (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 9 months ago | (#45987765)

This is the politician who is not only the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who supported both the Afghan and Iraq wars, but also voted for the extension of the PATRIOT ACT and the FISA provisions. She was also a co-sponsor of PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), which, like SOPA, allows the Attorney General to take action against any site it judges as “facilitating copyright infringement” by forcing all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to the site. And she heads up the International Narcotics Control Caucus, which has oversight of U.S. counter narcotics policy and activities. So much wrong there, it's hard to wrap your mind around it.

Probably just a peeping tom (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45986749)

She is pretty sexy, after all.

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (-1, Troll)

fucck slashdot (3503541) | about 9 months ago | (#45986773)

You sir are a fucking bastard

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987305)

You sir are a fucking bastard

Well, I couldn't infer from the parent post if it was written by a sir and/or by a bastard, but given that whoever wrote it is on Slashdot, I'm pretty sure he or she is not fucking. ;-)

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (0)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45987413)

Not my fault. My sister isn't in town this weekend.

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987639)

Sooo, how about that incest?

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45988369)

Fun for the whole family.

Re:Probably just a peeping tom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987791)

After further investigation, it was learned that it was operated by the neighbor teenager who enjoys older women. The surprise was anything but, it was the culmination of vigorous hand exercises which led to the loss of control of the aircraft.

Colorado is already way ahead of you as usual (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986757)

My property line also extends upwards. [latimes.com]

Re:Colorado is already way ahead of you as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987043)

This. You should be allowed to catch a drone trespassing on your property just like a fish swimming in your creek. Incidentally, throwing a fishing net on the drone might be the best way.

Re:Colorado is already way ahead of you as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987073)

How far? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Colorado is already way ahead of you as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987277)

My property line also extends upwards. [latimes.com]

The drone pictured in that story looks like a flying penis [trbimg.com]

Two sets of laws (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 9 months ago | (#45986761)

But Ms Feinstein, surely if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear?

Re:Two sets of laws (0)

fucck slashdot (3503541) | about 9 months ago | (#45986845)

you sir are a horse fucker

Re:Two sets of laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986943)

That's an awful thing to say about your own mother.

Re:Two sets of laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987511)

Judging from their nick and comment they viewed Dunbal as a real stud and wanted to be Dunbal's mare, however pit bull moderators quickly made them their bitch instead.

Speaking of bitches, Ms. Feinstein is no doubt participating in a maneuver to ban private use of anything remotely similar to government spy technology regardlesss of where they stole it from, ie, as many have hinted here, they want to prevent their golden goose from being gandered at.

Re:Two sets of laws (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 9 months ago | (#45987457)

Having nothing to hide when a drone peeps in your shower curtain is certainly something to fear.

Most people packing heat and a 6 pack fear nothing from peepers. "Yeah, take a good long look. That's what you got but it's made for an adult..."

Re:Two sets of laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987805)

That's Diane Feinstein to a T; she is a firm believer in a set of laws for the elite and a separate set of laws for the rest of us. In light of her gun control hypocrisy I'm not surprised by this at all.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32591-busted-gun-control-legislator-dianne-feinstein-discusses-why-she-concealed-carry-firearms/

She has been a strong advocate of gun control, and yet has a concealed-carry permit. She believes she has the right to self-defense, but the rest of us do not. Hypocrisy is her middle name, but again that's San Francisco politicians for you.

Feinstein (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986777)

Fuck Feinstein. She's statist scum and is not to be trusted.

She's a loon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986803)

Somehow I find her story less than credible. If she could hold up this "drone" and say she found it on her lawn I might give her just a bit of doubt but she's an extremist when it comes down to it so I expect her to make up wild tales of things that she's against.

Terrorist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986821)

Sound like she has something to hide! This should be just cause for additional survellience.

Re: Terrorist! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987109)

too bad the drone didn't rape and kill the wortess statist whore

Maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986839)

She should just shoot it down....oh wait....owning a gun makes you evil in her eyes...

Re: Maybe... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987313)

Well you may know that she issued one, and only one, concealed weapons permit while she was mayor of San Francisco -- to herself. Apparently out of all of San Francisco she believed she was the only civilian that could be trusted and deserved permission to carry a gun.
Please excuse me while I vomit...
BTW profanity does not enhance this discussion. It diverts attention from her disgusting behavior to yours.

Re:Maybe... (4, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 9 months ago | (#45987377)

No, she's got guns. She just doesn't want *you* to have them.

Re:Maybe... (4, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#45987397)

She owns one... despite the fact that she consistently legislates against the 2nd amendment, and has her own security detail.

Here It Comes Again (5, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about 9 months ago | (#45986847)

1. Federal licensing and "oversight" for businesses = tax$

2. Exemptions for "national security" = hello FBI/TSA/NSA/DEA

3. Strong, enforceable privacy policy = Private use prohibited.

Watch for it.

Re:Here It Comes Again (1)

johnncyber (1478117) | about 9 months ago | (#45986919)

Sadly already happening in Texas.

Re:Here It Comes Again (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45987467)

1. Federal licensing and "oversight" for businesses = tax$

2. Exemptions for "national security" = hello FBI/TSA/NSA/DEA

3. Strong, enforceable privacy policy = Private use prohibited.

Watch for it.

Considering that the source is one Ms. Diane "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns, but I'll keep my heavily armed guard detail" Feinstein, I can't imagine that would be all too surprising.

She lies.... Reality is (4, Interesting)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 9 months ago | (#45986863)

DIFI had a $40 remote control helicopter fly by her house during a CODE PINK protest against her use of drones and her support of the endless wars she supports.

Re:She lies.... Reality is (2)

almeida (98786) | about 9 months ago | (#45987351)

her support of the endless wars she supports

This is why I only vote for candidates who have pledged to support only the wars they don't support.

Re:She lies.... Reality is (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 9 months ago | (#45987641)

The ability to make a last minute edit after submitting would be a good feature here!

Re:She lies.... Reality is (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 9 months ago | (#45987671)

I don't see how your description contradicts what she said, and it sounds like CODE PINKs gambit may actually work.

Re:She lies.... Reality is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987875)

Um, no. A remote control heli from Target is far from being a "drone" that "peeped" in on her.
 
And she'd never draft legislation in a million years that would limit government use of such a device.

Re:She lies.... Reality is (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 9 months ago | (#45989087)

True but it's likely closer to what she actually saw. If she actually saw anything at all that is...

Re:She lies.... Reality is (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 9 months ago | (#45988471)

I don't see how your description contradicts what she said,

Well, if the drone was looking OUT at her, as she is quoted as saying, then it wasn't flying by her house it was inside the house and she was standing on the ledge. Or she simply has problems with basic English words like "in" and "out". Could be either one.

Re:She lies.... Reality is (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 9 months ago | (#45987721)

Pink Barbie helicopter scares Senator in her $16.5M mansion. The gals at Code Pink needed a man to fly a slightly larger top copter, but it wasn't successful either. http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/01/was-drone-feinstein-encountered-her-house-tiny-pink-helicopter/357061/ [thewire.com]

Drones? I don't think so... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986865)

It still pisses me off that they call ALL of these devices "drones". I expect that almost NONE of these are actual drones... but just simple RC quad copters. WTF!?

Now we know it works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986871)

It's often been suggested that the way to curb privacy invasions by those in power is to inflict them on those in power. Now we have evidence it works! (If only I could believe that these "strong, binding enforceable privacy policies" would apply to government and corporate-controlled drones instead of just hobbyists and protesters.)

In other news, we have proof that Senator Feinstein's face is so ugly it can crash a drone.

All I can say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986881)

We need more of this specifically on Members of Congress, Including (but not limited to) making public their PRIVATE phone conversations, e-mails, calendars, texts, and whatnot.

They have nothing to hide, do they?

BULL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986891)

She's a lying fucking bitch.

I wish the drone outside her house had been an H.K. and had taken her out.

She wasn't surveilled.... (5, Informative)

malakai (136531) | about 9 months ago | (#45986913)

... I don't see this covered in any of the mainstream media reports, but the 'drone' involved was a pink 'barbie' knockoff with no video capability. It's a $25 dollar think-geek type mini gyro. I'm amazed it made it to the 2nd floor window of a home outside. No wonder it crashed, those things have the stability of a paper airplane thrown into a fan.

Example of it:
http://www.amazon.com/33013-Concept-Alloy-Helicopter-Light/dp/B009VCHVJQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1389974986&sr=1-3&keywords=pink+gyro [amazon.com]

"Obviously the pilot of the drone had some surprise..."

Obviously the pilot couldn't see you because there's no cameras on it, so I doubt she was surprised you looked out the window....

...because the drone wheeled around and crashed ..."

They do that a lot.

The irony here is Feinstein over dramatization of this event given what she authorizes on the SIC. Using this incident to call for stricter drone laws is like being hit by a paper airplane and calling for the FAA to investigate.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45987315)

The irony here is Feinstein over dramatization

That's status quo for her, unfortunately. She's a terrible Senator, but a fairly good power monger.

Just like with guns, her goal is to take this technology away from the hoi polloi and reserve the use for her gang.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 9 months ago | (#45987491)

It's just awesome some kid buzzed her house so Feinstein could poke her head outside of her little gopher hole and say; "Drone!???!! Eek! This is bad. I wasn't even wearing my Prada high heals and Fredricks jelly bra! Something must be done because I've got a party this weekend."

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 9 months ago | (#45987537)

... The irony here is Feinstein over dramatization of this event given what she authorizes on the SIC. Using this incident to call for stricter drone laws is like being hit by a paper airplane and calling for the FAA to investigate.

I think in this case we can use the term "literally" rather than "ironic." This is "literally like calling the FAA because you got hit by a paper airplane." You called the NSA because someone buzzed you with a toy. Had it been a Paper Airplane with the proper ID on the side, she'd be calling the FAA with a complaint about the flight plan.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (OT) (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | about 9 months ago | (#45989269)

I think in this case we can use the term "literally" rather than "ironic." This is "literally like calling the FAA because you got hit by a paper airplane."

To use "literally" (which indicates a non-figurative statement) in conjunction with "like" (which indicates the figurative form called simile) defies logic. "Literally" is not a flavoring word to be bandied about for emphasis. Or perhaps you were literally being ironic.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 9 months ago | (#45987635)

Just as an aside, as an aspiring filmmaker, you'd be surprised what we can modify to install cameras on. a Go Pro, is a common off-the-shelf camera that's common enlisted into these sorts of endeavors, and you can fork out about $45 to rent one for a day or weekend with "damage insurance".

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (2)

malakai (136531) | about 9 months ago | (#45987819)

An Go-Pro Hero 2 weighs about 1/4th of the total weight of one of these mini gyros. There's no way that's going to fly on these. They don't have that kind of lift.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 9 months ago | (#45988195)

The irony here is Feinstein over dramatization of this event given what she authorizes on the SIC. Using this incident to call for stricter drone laws is like being hit by a paper airplane and calling for the FAA to investigate.

She probably remembers it as a scary military drone. Human memory is weird like that, stories grow bigger over time. Remember Clinton disembarking from a chopper under sniper fire in Bosnia?

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game.html [northwestern.edu]

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45988691)

She wasn't surveilled....

Clearly the drone was there to blow up a wedding party at her neighbor's home.

Re:She wasn't surveilled.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45989171)

Just a couple links to more information about the incident on TechDirt [techdirt.com] and TheWire [thewire.com] .

Drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986965)

Yeah because we all know how great government policy is regarding drones!!

How about we just fly on right up her butt... Why do Californians keep electing this stooge????

Well? Answer the question! (3, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45986979)

How dare you spy on us !

How dare you try to listen in on privacies like political negotiations as we carve up all your reality and feed it back to you in exchange for votes! Do you know how hard it is to keep cover memes hiding the real reasons we do things in place?

fuck you feinstein (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45986997)

You're responsible for a lot of this surveillance bullshit, you authoritarian jackasss!!!

I can only call for a blanket of drones to harass and make this scumbag's life miserable...

A drone in the hand (3, Insightful)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 9 months ago | (#45987175)

Okay, I can on one hand understand the lack of love for the dear Senator. With the other, let us not miss an advantage to press an issue that till now did not seem important to our Surveillance Lady in Waiting. Finally a Senator gets a first hand taste (and let's assume it really happened*) of getting spied on and she's pissed off. Now she wants warrants and oversight so let's help in that direction to the full extent of what it means to have your privacy assaulted.

I think it is sad that one of the privileged needs to be affected before they react with more then a sniff. It would be grand if our elected officials actually cared a damn for the people they represent, but I for one welcome her "outrage" and hope she uses it to tighten privacy laws and get tough on those who ignore our Constitutional rights.

* all this noise of whether it was a real drone, it was made up, or did or did not carry a camera is plain stupid. If it happened then good, she got a taste of the future and does not like it. If it was fake or trumped up so she can cited a "legitimate" reason for her outcry, who cares. The story is her enlightened position.

Re:A drone in the hand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987451)

I fully agree with your comments, but I get the impression that the outcome will be that "properly authorised" drones will remain usable as business as usable, but anything that looks even remotely like a flying device onto which a camera could conceivably be fitted would be cause for further harassment if found in the hands of private citizens.

Re:A drone in the hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45988523)

I'm starting to think that a new tradition when having a child should be to go out and register its LLC, so that every human is also a corporation, and has the privileges associated with such status....

It's about possesion (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 9 months ago | (#45987181)

Feinstein is probably amping up legislation to keep drones out of the hands of hobbyists and the general public.

Re:It's about possesion (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#45987211)

Feinstein is probably amping up legislation to keep drones out of the hands of hobbyists and the general public.

Well, duh. Politicians love drones when they're spying on the proles, but let the proles spy on them... never.

Pictures. It Did Happen. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987199)

Here's a picture of the drone. [imgur.com] I really did happen. Teh drones is shocking!

Image taken from this video. [youtube.com]

DIFI (4, Insightful)

Rich_Lather (925834) | about 9 months ago | (#45987233)

Orwell's pigs suddenly come to mind.

Search Warrant (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 9 months ago | (#45987247)

"She ... recommended a search warrant requirement."

The requirement for a warrant is already there, right in the Constitution. I guess that is ancient history now.

It wasn't a Drone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987339)

It really annoys me that everybody is calling these things drones. THEY ARE NOT. They are remotely piloted vehicles. A Drone has no pilot and follows a preprogrammed route or follows a set of programming and instructions and has no pilot. Such as the Drones that Amazon would use to deliver packages. Or creating a drone to follow a target based on a gps signal. Or to be launched and collect reconnaissance data of a specified area. I have a real problem with Drones being used by law enforcement or the military in the US.

A UAV or remotely piloted vehicle cannot be operated without the assistance of the pilot. It still requires a warm body to be involved and requires a similar amount of resources as if you actually had a pilot in the vehicle. I have less of a problem with this. I see little difference between this and a police helicopter or airplane which are both highly useful at actually catching criminals.

Re:It wasn't a Drone (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45988817)

It really annoys me that everybody is calling these things drones. THEY ARE NOT. They are remotely piloted vehicles.

In this case, it was apparently a toy. So, only pretty loosely an RPV.

Next Election . . . (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 9 months ago | (#45987453)

(a) Who needs drones when you have deep space telescopes pointed at the surface of the Earth?
(b) This is an attempt at distraction from the very real problem of the NSA intensively spying on ordinary Americans without a warrant founded on probable cause.
(c) Feinstein needs to be out of the Senate. I hope a good Democratic candidate challenges her.

Re:Next Election . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987619)

(A) Drones can attack - not just spy.
(B) Not a distraction but in fact part of the problem with not only the NSA but IRS and many other govt agencies.
(C) Agreed! But it seems Californian's are either stupid or blind.. Look how long Frankenstein has been in office.

Re:Next Election . . . (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45988801)

(a) Who needs drones

Anyone who wants to read a car number plate, a news headline, identify an individual, look in a window from a low angle, launch a missile, acquire images at better than 30cm resolution, not spend half a billion dollars...

when you have deep space telescopes pointed at the surface of the Earth?

You don't. Or if you do, you're using the wrong ones.

(b) This is an attempt at distraction from the very real problem of the NSA intensively spying on ordinary Americans without a warrant founded on probable cause.

No, it's just some crazy lady.

Reap what you sow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987591)

Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. I suggest we form a nationwide group of people with drones to follow our beloved political leaders around 24/7 with drones.

Minor retribution for the Patriot Act abuses against the citizens.

wake up time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45987945)

as most drones used by law enforcement are very cheap to construct using 'off the shelf parts' it is possible that they can be radio jammed out of the sky. if people are serious about ridding the sky of these things then build a jammer.. or shoot it. but with jamming you will least have the chance of capturing it (in one piece - hopefully) so it can then be reprogrammed..or stripped for parts and intel.

Re:wake up time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45988593)

A net gun would probably work just as well... or a few rare earth magnets and a slingshot.

Re:wake up time (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 9 months ago | (#45989113)

Unlikely at the altitude they're likely to be at. An HERF gun would probably do the trick though.

Wicked witch kills drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45988475)

Who knew she could scare drones out of the sky?

Please do! (1)

DiEx-15 (959602) | about 9 months ago | (#45988655)

Me and my GF just love to target practice!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?