Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, February 11, 2013

The Moment of Drones and Christopher Dorner

Posted by on Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:32 AM

It's happening...

It was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.

A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”
The kind of society we live in, and stage at which this society is in the 200-year development of capitalist social production and control, makes escaping the logic of drones impossible. Dorner enters the history after the end of history.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"Dorner is the first"

They've been using these for years now, but hey, whatever the conspiracy theorists want. Clearly this has something to do with the Pope's resignation and end-times prophecies.
Posted by GermanSausage on February 11, 2013 at 8:45 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 2
If the drone finds him, does it fire tranquilizer darts?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on February 11, 2013 at 9:09 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 3
Dorner may be the first individual named specifically to be searched for by a drone, but law enforcement has been using them for a while now to track down groups of criminals such as poachers or farmers/makers of drugs.

Also, it is possible that there is no string of words with less meaning than "the end of history."
Posted by Theodore Gorath on February 11, 2013 at 9:09 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 4
LOL!!! Sit back smoke a fat one and pop some popcorn. This is gonna make for some great TV!!!
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on February 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 5
Note what that story doesn't mention (if it's the same one my anti-drone friend sent me) is that "government" means LAPD, not the federal government as they strongly imply.

I'm not sure how I feel about drones that are able to find people. I don't want them able to shoot, but to look and find? I think I'm ok with that.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
6
I'm cool with this. LAPD uses helicopters to the point where they have nicknames. These drones are no worse.
Posted by fetish on February 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report this
7
@5 I think there is also a huge difference between an aerial search in pursuit of a specific person, and general surveillance.
Posted by The sun in your Eyes; Made some of the lies worth believing on February 11, 2013 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 8
I'd like to see a Mudede post on the ethical distinctions between helicopter surveillance, drone persuit, general drone surveillance, and those cameras on buses (which helped catch Justin Ferrari's murderer).
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM · Report this
9
@7, and why do you think that?
Posted by GermanSausage on February 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM · Report this
10
@9 I thought it was self explanatory, so I guess I'll liken it to something to illustrate:

Let's say the police come in through a back window of my house.

If they did it because:
a) they were actively perusing the ax-wielding fellow who just tracked my neighbors remains onto my carpet, I'd probably be grateful more than anything else.
b) they had a properly garnered warrant, I'd probably be pissed as hell, but at least a case had been made before my feelings and petunias had been trampled.
c) they thought there might be a fugitive in my living room, that would be almost overwhelmingly problematic, even if they were correct, without some reasonably high and clear bars against their entry, such as met in #b.
d) they had some technology that enabled them to conveniently do so to everyone, and why should it bother me unless I have something to hide, then we have lost an important right and freedom.

Now I don't know if Christopher Dorner is anything more than a suspect at this point, so I don't know if #b applies at all, but such a manhunt is somewhere between #a and #c, depending on the expectation of privacy in the spaces they end up searching, and is probably pretty reasonable.

As for general surveillance, I certainly don't have a reasonable right to complete privacy everywhere I go, but I don't think that the invention of reconnaissance drones means that we should loose the freedom not to live under their gaze.
Posted by The sun in your Eyes; Made some of the lies worth believing on February 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM · Report this
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on February 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 12
"I certainly don't have a reasonable right to complete privacy everywhere I go, but I don't think that the invention of reconnaissance drones means that we should [lose] the freedom not to live under their gaze." Do we have that freedom? I don't remember that amendment. Are police officers not allowed to gernerally survey a street?

I'm not arguing one way or another on that right - I haven't made up my own mind on it. But I don't think that's a right we currently have. If you're in public, what you do is public information and you can be photographed and recorded.

Where's the link to that guy that ran around getting into everyone's face with a videocamera? That should probably be part of this discussion as well.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM · Report this
13
A number of the comments here are so moronic today they really aren't worthy of a response, but to @1, GermanBreitbartWurst who says:

"..whatever the conspiracy theorists want."

Whenever any troll, chatbot, on-the-payroll stooger, or just general fuckwit uses the terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorists" they are quoting from CIA Document 1035-960, disseminated back in 1964 to CIA personnal and media members on their payroll in response to the shitstorm to the release of that drivel known as the Warren Commission Report (and if you've never read that crapola, withhold any troll comments until you have done so).

Until that CIA doc, released due to a FOIA request by the NY Times in 1976, that phrase never appeared in the media whatsoever. Period!

(Yo, fuckwits! Know how to use Google yet? Then Google "CIA Document 1035-960.)

And speaking of drones. . .

http://www.privacysos.org/node/963

Sources:

Conspiracy Theory in America, by Lance deHaven-Smith
Posted by sgt_doom on February 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM · Report this
14
Pope Benny (aka Ratzo Ratzinger) needed to spend more time with his "little friends" (very young boys and girls).
Posted by sgt_doom on February 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM · Report this
15
@13, when people use the word "it's happening!" followed by a very mundane news story, they're mocking conspiracy theorists. So the whole conspiracy theory thing was already out there. Did you know that conspiracy theorists tend to be very sad individuals, who feel very insecure, and they grab onto conspiracy theories because it gives them a false sense of power?

@10, in this case we've got a gun-weilding lunatic instead of an ax-wielding lunatic. There's more than enough probably cause for a manhunt, though that's moot. I'm sure there's an arrest warrant and has been one since nearly the beginning. They're not looking in people's living rooms, but apparently in the wilderness, where there's not much right to privacy. So I'm still not seeing what you're getting at here.
Posted by GermanSausage on February 11, 2013 at 11:38 AM · Report this
16
I'm pretty sure drones have been used for mountain-rescue type situations before, using thermal imaging to try to locate specific lost hikers. So, no, Dorner isn't even the first named individual sought in this manner within the US. First fugitive, maybe.
Posted by Warren Terra on February 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 17
@15 how do you know they're not looking in people's living rooms without warrants?

You don't. Because they might be.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 18
@17 Are you talking about thermal imaging through roofs? If the technology is good enough to do that well, I agree that shouldn't be legal without a warrant. There's a pretty strong presumption of privacy within a home.

That said, I would be impressed if that were the case. I've used some pretty good thermal imaging cameras, and there's no way you can see a person through a roof. A quick google agrees with me.

I do recall the issue of detecting grow rooms in your house through thermal imaging from helicopters, but that makes your whole roof glow.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report this
19
@12 I guess I am operating from the old 1834 idea that I ask nothing — want nothing, but to be let alone until it can be shown that I have violated the rights of another.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that while I can understand if it is incidental to a manhunt, I find that trolling around for video or thermal imaging an unreasonable intrusion upon my seclusion, whether I am wandering around in the wilderness or down town.

The extent to which the government acknowledges and protects my right against such is certainly in question, but I did think it was worth drawing out the distinction between manhunts and general surveillance as it was between drone strikes and reconnaissance.
Posted by The sun in your Eyes; Made some of the lies worth believing on February 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 20
Tin foil hats for everyone!
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM · Report this
21
@13, GermanSmallNuts,

"..So the whole conspiracy theory thing was already out there."

Again and again, you respond to fact with nonsense, and unsubstantiated nonsense.

Fact: the phrase "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" did not exist prior to CIA Document 1035-960 and no bullcrap which froths from your effeminate mouth will change that fact.

Give up, douchey boy.

And today's prayer:

Viva Hollande! Viva Chávez!
Posted by sgt_doom on February 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM · Report this
Posted by sgt_doom on February 11, 2013 at 1:55 PM · Report this
23
@21 "let me defend conspiracy theorists by acting exactly like the crazy conspiracy theorist stereotype."

Go on with your bad self.
Posted by GermanSausage on February 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy