Because freedom can't protect itself
Concerning the use of Drones.
I can understand the use of Drones in law enforcement with restrictions and rules.
People are forgetting a long established law over your private Air Rights.
(The government allowed airplanes that fly 1000's of feet up to fly over your home or business for obvious reasons they could not skip over homes and business'.)
We have a person who owns a small hover craft that you strap to your back and he hovers very close to the tops of our homes. This should not be allowed either, this is in our air space that we privately own.)
In this country we are loosing our freedoms and privacy more and more in so many areas. We are asleep in this country. Thus, 9/11 happened.
You miss the most obvious point about why those in this field don't call them drones. Namely, drones specifically refer to unmanned vehicles intended for target practice. This term has been widely used since the '50s and maybe even earlier. Many of these drones were not actively piloted and had simple guidance systems (fly to this point to get shot at). On the other hand, UAVs are a relatively new term that only recently replaced RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) used to designate unmanned aircraft designed for surveillance. Thus, all drones are UAVs, but not all UAVs are drones. Why you can fault them for using bland acronyms, you can't fault them for not agreeing to misusing the term, those in Deer Field, Colorado notwithstanding. As a comparison, while many laypersons use the terms laws, regulations, bills and resolutions interchangeably, their lack of understanding of the legal system doesn't make that use correct.
What’s in a word? If the meaning is obscure – plenty. I am sure George Orwell would have been the first to agree that while a simplified word or phrase is to be desired over more complicated words or phrases, the choice of word also has to be accurate and to convey the full meaning. The descriptive use of multiple words becomes necessary if a simpler alternative is misleading. The aerospace industry has used the word “drone” for decades to indicate a pilotless flying vehicle usually towed behind another aircraft and used, for example, for target practice. Therefore, a drone is indeed a UAV – but all UAVs are certainly not drones. Furthermore, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are definitely not drones. With use, however, words can take on new meanings and the Oxford English Dictionary now defines drone as a “remotely piloted aircraft” (RPA). So the meaning of the word has evolved. Nevertheless, UAS and drone are NOT synonymous and the authors’ criticism of the industry’s insistence on using RPA, UAV or UAS, even when used in the correct context, is disingenuous in the extreme. Simplistic charges of these phrases being “technical, bland, and bureaucratic” are trite. The purpose is to convey understanding, not to be brief.
Other phrases within the article also mislead the reader. Thus the sentence, “Putting aside well-founded fears that even domestically we may someday see the deployment of weaponized drones” is a claim made without legal argument or documentary evidence. In fact the opposite is true. Current federal law forbids the weaponizing of any non-military aircraft in the skies over the US, manned or unmanned. Therefore, in what sense are such claims “well-founded”? (Pointing the reader to an online blog by another uninformed writer is hardly supportive or helpful.)
Similarly, to suggest that a “Predator, a Reaper, a police craft, or a $150 backyard hobby rotorcraft” are simply the same tools used differently is unsupportable. Let's reverse the logic; if they were the same tools, they could presumably be used in the same way. Perhaps then the authors would like to explain fully how a $150 backyard hobby rotorcraft could be “armed with Hellfire missiles”. Clearly, they are not the same tools, anymore than my family car is the same tool as a huge tractor-trailer just because they use the same highways.
The ACLU should be better than this. They should be focusing on the real issues at hand, namely how to protect citizens’ privacy rights while at the same time not stifling the growth of a technology that will have enormous benefits to US citizens. Where was the ACLU when smart phones came out with built-in GPS, cameras and phones? Where were they when the internet, search engines and email came out? All of these technologies are potential threats to our privacy, and yet they are all accepted as wonderfully beneficial tools for all of us. The ACLU should not divert attention from the real issue - which is the security and use of data, no matter how collected - with a trivial and highly misleading argument over the choice of words
Your argument is really silly. The reason they would prefer to use the term "UAV" rather than "drone" is to distinguish modern technology from old technology. The military has had "drones" for years. However those drones were "targets". They were gunnery or radar targets; referred to as "target drones". So, you can imagine that no one wants their high tech hardware to be associated with a dumb target. Rather than playing around with silly word games you should have picked up a history book.
Comments 2, 3, and 4 are pretty good. Not all UAVs are drones. A $100 radio-controlled model airplane is not a "drone." If people think the word "drone" has a negative connotation because of the word's connection with military UAVs that fire Hellfire missiles and gather intelligence for the military, then maybe it's because that's what "drone" means - "military UAVs that fire Hellfire missiles and gather intelligence for the military." Or something to that effect. Just because the first type of UAV that people became familiar with were "drones" does not mean that all UAVs are drones. This would be like an Afghan calling all Americans "soldiers," just because the first Americans they happened to meet were soldiers.
It would be helpful, though obviously not likely to happen, if the ACLU would stop pretending that they use the word "drone" for reasons other than fear-mongering. An honest discussion would use the word "UAV" or "UAS", which is what they are, and not "drone", which is what most of them aren't. I think it's pretty condescending to think the American people are too stupid to understand what "UAV" means.
UAV's are not targets, sometimes they are used to spray our atmosphere with aluminum and barium, heavy metals that we can inhale.
Aluminum and barium.
What is the chances of an American citizen being "watched" by the US government if he was "asked" (suspected?) of assisting someone who is supposedly under terrorist watch during Sept 11, 2001, even though he has nothing to do with it, nor does he know the person supposedly under terrorist watch?
More information about formatting options
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Congress: Restore the Voting Rights Act
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.