Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing
There was a republican protest over COVID where there was mass theft, looting, and arson?
And, while police can certainly instigate violence, I find it difficult to believe that someone had to steal a TV from target or loot the apple store (as happened in portland) because the police instigated them to.
I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation?
This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area.
Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.
As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too.
Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.
Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't.
Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
"[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
ETA:
> Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Who are we to make that call, in either direction?
One would have to ignore a large part of history in addition to events over the last 20 years to make the claim that this was a knee-jerk reaction.
"The Flag is drenched with our blood, because so many of our ancestors was killed because we have never accepted slavery. We had to live on it, but we never wanted it. So we know the flag is drenched with our blood. So what the young people are saying now - give us a chance to be young men [...] we know this country was built on the black backs of black people across this country and if we don't have it you ain't going to have it either cos we going to tear it up. That's what they saying. And people ought to understand that. I don't see why they don't understand it. All across this country, they know what they've done to us." --Mrs Fannie Lou Hamer
"The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal" --Donald Trump, on white rioters
"...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!" --Donald Trump, on black rioters.
"Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn't really want the TV set. He's saying screw you. It's just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn't want it. He wants to let you know he's there. The question I'm trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word "looter." On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you're accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it's obscene." --James Baldwin 1968
The armed protesters in Michigan were being jackasses but afaik they didn’t start looting or committing arson (or even hurt anyone for that matter). There is no equivalence here, it’s just as much a bullshit “both sides” argument as the one trump made three years ago.
They were saying “don’t kill me”. This argument is blatantly racist.
Even with the “100 mile zone”, Minneapolis is more than 200 miles inland.
But this still shows how broken this is because now you have a drone survilence by some agency but people don't know which one and maybe a violation of responsibilities if it's actually operated by the border protection...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
But it's not different in the long: we should be aware of mass surveillance, because it can affect freedom of association (chilling), and can advance government abuse.
Citizens should always watch the government, so that we have a chance to rein them in. Its our government, not the other way around.
From CBP's standpoint, it makes sense. What other unmanned aircraft could carry the same sensor package, while also being incapable of being armed? There's the Global Hawk, which costs about 10x more than a Reaper.
There's a reason that a civilian agency like NASA owns so many fighter jets (F-15/16s). R&D is expensive and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. (Also worth noting-- NASA also owns some Predator drones)
This is a model which is incapable of carrying armament.
> The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
This is a straw man, the Predator is a weapons platform, nothing is being hidden here.
Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles.
Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.
If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.