Today’s Op-Ed Reaction comes from the article
Huge increase in police drone use: Sensible solution or spies in the sky? By Mike White Published in the New Zealand newspaper The Post on September 5th
My initial reaction to the question posed in the title is spies in the sky. If government is good at anything it is good at expanding its power. If there is a way for a tool to be used in a coercive manner over time it will be used for that purpose, even if that was never the original intention.
White begins by noting that drone use by police in New Zealand has quadrupled in the last 2 years. He then notes that the police have gained certification to allow drones to be used “outside of normal constraints.”
Those constraints that the police do not have to abide by include flying below 120 meters, not flying over property or people without their permission and flying indoors.
The first question that arises is can anyone gain this certification or is it reserved for certain actors? If it is available to the general public then gaining certification shouldn’t be seen as a red flag. If the certification could only be obtained because they are police then it becomes more concerning.
White notes that Inspector Darren Russell sees drones serving 3 main purposes. They are search and rescue, aerial photography of crime and crash scenes and high risk situations.
White notes the international use of police drones including as first responders to emergency calls. I wonder what the efficacy of a drone as a first responder is and what level of satisfaction the person requesting emergency services had when a drone instead of a police officer arrived.
When noting the dangers White wrote: “In Israel, police used drones to fire tear gas at protestors in Jerusalem last year, and in China, they were used to enforce Covid regulations such as mask wearing, by flying over people and repeating official messages.”
These examples provide the destructive potential of police drones. A drone capable of firing tear gas is not a far step from a drone capable of firing live ammunition. Drones will be used in violation of privacy laws by police officers at some point in time. The real question is what punishment will those officers face? If it is not substantial drone use in violation of current law will become more and more invasive and more widespread and we will only wish that those drones were merely spies in the sky.
Read the article linked above and let me know your thoughts.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“Specific protection must be granted to human rights defenders and whistleblowers who have in some contexts been accused of being unpatriotic, whereas they perform, in reality, a democratic service to their countries and to the enjoyment of human rights of their compatriots.”
Alfred-Maurice de Zayas
