Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Spies in the Sky

  You’ve heard about them. In Knoxville you have probably seen them. The unmanned aerial spy drones keeping watch over us from the sky. Drones are increasingly being used domestically, with over $3 billion spent on drones in the US in 2010.
   Drones can hack wifi networks, intercept all cell phone communication (calls/texts/voice-mail/etc) , record a live-feed of data via radar, infrared, GPS, and thermal sensors, and can also carry weapons.
   Only the government is allowed to operate drones, and Wired Magazine reports the existence of “64 drone bases on American soil. That includes 12 locations housing Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which can be armed.... There are also 22 planned locations for future bases.” This raises a concern that government may consider the general public an enemy to be surveilled. According to FAA estimates, the number of drones operating in the US could reach 15,000 by 2020.
   With more and more flying spy robots dotting the skies, there is enormous potential for abuse. No wonder the FAA doesn’t release flight schedules or records for unmanned vehicles. Without anyone knowing, the government can extract all your personal information, track your whereabouts, and document your activities. Obama likes to kill people with his drones, he even keeps a list of his most treasured targets. So far the unmanned spy vehicles of death haven’t fired on America, but will they?

1 comment:

  1. Dave Hodges, Contributor Activist Post

    "The Government Plans to Murder More Americans Without Due Process A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force.” The memo makes it clear that these lethal attacks can be carried out even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. And since when are intelligence reports considered to be proof of guilt or innocence? The Justice Department’s use of the term “associated force” is particularity troubling. Who or what could be considered an associated force? The Justice Department memo is silent on this point. Since dissent is considered to be an act of terrorism by many government officials, could this mean that an associated force could simply mean that anyone who disagrees with the government is a legitimate target for a drone attack"