August 12,
2012
According
to a national poll sample [approximately 1,700 people] taken by
Monmoth College, " An overwhelming majority of Americans support
the idea of using drones [flying "armed robots"] to help
with search and rescue missions (80%). Two-thirds of the public also
support using drones to track down runaway criminals (67%) and
control illegal immigration on the nation’s border (64%). One area
where Americans say that drones should not be used, though, is to
issue speeding tickets. Only 23% support using drones for this
routine police activity while a large majority of 67% oppose the
idea. "
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/poll-shows-concern-about-drones-and-domestic-surveillance
Peter
Singer, in his New York Times piece, "Do Drones Undermine
Democracy?"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/do-drones-undermine-democracy.html?pagewanted=print)
points out that drone technology ( or in military jargon, "unmanned
aerial systems") has raised important questions about the
division of powers between the Congress and the President: "In
America, our Constitution explicitly divided the president’s role
as commander in chief in war from Congress’s role in declaring war.
Yet these links and this division of labor are now under siege as a
result of a technology that our founding fathers never could have
imagined." Singer goes on to comment that,"... now we
possess a technology that removes the last political barriers to war.
The strongest appeal of unmanned systems is that we don’t have to
send someone’s son or daughter into harm’s way. But when
politicians can avoid the political consequences of the condolence
letter — and the impact that military casualties have on voters and
on the news media — they no longer treat the previously weighty
matters of war and peace the same way." He comes concludes,
"The Constitution did not leave war, no matter how it is waged,
to the executive branch alone. In a democracy, it is an issue for all
of us."
Rich
Lowry, Editor of the National Review points out that, "Drones
will no doubt raise novel issues under the Fourth Amendment, which
prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. They will require rules.
The same is true of any technology, of course. The Supreme Court held
unanimously earlier this year that police can't attach a GPS tracker
on someone's vehicle without a warrant. This isn't reason to ban all
use of GPS trackers by law enforcement. The fear of drones is, in
part, the fear of the new -- it is Luddism masquerading as civil
libertarianism. " (Luddism is a perjorative term for folks who
act like the Luddites of the nineteeth century destroying the new
technology of the industrial revolution which threatend their
livelhoods ). Lowry further states, "The influential
conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wants drones banned
domestically and thinks the first American to shoot one down will be
declared a national hero. Sen. Rand Paul considers them a clear and
present danger to American freedom and is offering legislation to
require a warrant every time one takes flight, except to patrol the
border or in extraordinary circumstances. The drone is to our liberty
what the wolf is to sheep, a natural enemy."
http://newsok.com/rich-lowry-the-great-drone-panic/article/3691059#ixzz20FqmvhzD
From
the Reason Online blog, Calvin Thompson opines, "It is a stretch
to think that the same federal government that gave us the PATRIOT
Act, the TSA, and the indiscriminate drone attacks on civilians in
the Middle East would even think twice about violating domestic
privacy rights."
(http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/10/drone-code-of-conduct-says-and-accomplis)
Apparently
this seems to be an isssue that Progressives and Libertarians can
find common ground as both place a premium on individual rights
including Privacy --- the right to be left alone.
"Watchbirds",
a short story by Robert Sheckley written over fifty years ago,
addresses this issue. Watchbirds were like our drones taken to the
next level: they were equipped with learning circuitry which allowed
them to discern when a crime was about to take place and could
deliver a taser-like jolt to the would-be perpetrator thus preventing
the intended crime. When one Watchbird learned something new --
it was automatically transferred to the whole flock so they became
better and better at detecting and stopping crimes like murder until
they began zapping fishermen who they had inferred were murdering
the fish. I won't spoil where this goes --- I'll only reveal that the
outcome is much much worse than anything the pundits or the
politicians have mentioned. Read the story at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29579/29579-h/29579-h.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment