this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
94 points (89.2% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3922 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

APNews

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Reminder that the NY police department is the only municipal police department in the world with detachments in foreign countries. To protect New York, of course!

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe the police should focus on responding to noise complaints in a timely way instead of engaging in yet more surveillance? When I lived in NYC every noise complaint took at least 12 hours to get a police response. Sometimes they wouldn't come until days later.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Pigs don't need drones to follow up on noise complaints. They need drones to know which parties have black people in attendance so they'll know which noise complaints to take seriously.

[–] ElBarto@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When pigs fly.......

Looks like we all got a bunch of shit to do now.

[–] kenopsik@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

This is an S-tier joke

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Where does it end? Soon enough they’ll be using those wifi cameras that see through walls just to check up on noise complaints from a neighbor.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Since it's not inside a home, apparently they can get away with it:

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wonder if you could file a complaint with the FAA?

[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sadly, law enforcement usually gets BVLOS waivers (exemption to Line-Of-Sight rules) very easily, and most yards can easily be surveilled from Class G airspace...

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And can they operate over people/roads too?

[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

Roads, yes. People, it depends but generally no.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The cops were foiled by patio coverings. Drats. All that money spent and simply putting up sheets over your backyard would keep your privacy. Make sure your music is loud too in case they're capturing sound.

[–] a_lemmy_user@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago

Or let them capture stuff like "the fitness requirements of our police force are a national shame."

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

A good cell phone jammer, I would think, would stop them being able to control it. Doubt it would crash, though, it'd probably hover till either the battery died or they show up to investigate.

Unfortunately you can't shoot it. If it's low enough, you might be able to use another drone to snag it with a net or hit it with a strong water gun, then leave it out on the sidewalk, wet and broken, for them to come get.

[–] zerkrazus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is fascist bullshit. We should have something to knock every one of them out of the sky and smash them to a billion pieces.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The New York City police department plans to pilot the unmanned aircrafts in response to complaints about large gatherings, including private events, over Labor Day weekend, officials announced Thursday.

The plan drew immediate backlash from privacy and civil liberties advocates, raising questions about whether such drone use violated existing laws for police surveillance

“It’s a troubling announcement and it flies in the face of the POST Act,” said Daniel Schwarz, a privacy and technology strategist at the New York Civil Liberties Union, referring to a 2020 city law that requires the NYPD to disclose its surveillance tactics.

The move was announced during a security briefing focused on J’ouvert, an annual Caribbean festival marking the end of slavery that brings thousands of revelers and a heavy police presence to the streets of Brooklyn.

But as the technology proliferates, privacy advocates say regulations have not kept up, opening the door to intrusive surveillance that would be illegal if conducted by a human police officer.

Cahn, the privacy advocate, said city officials should be more transparent with the public about how police are currently using drones, with clear guardrails that prevent surveillance overreach in the future.


The original article contains 578 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not illegal to laser pointer drones. Have everyone armed with laser pointers to light that fucker up.

[–] ilickfrogs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Actually it is, it's treated the same as laser pointing an airliner.

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

That doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t risk harming a pilots eyes. I’m not sure I believe this would be illegal.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What about a water hose?