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.
Thomas Aquinas is credited as one of the greatest proponents of natural law. During his time in Cologne he was taught by Albertus Magnus. Magnus used the teachings of Aristotle in his mentorship of Thomas Aquinas.
Samuel Adams believed in American Independence from Great Britain. He is one of the most well know Son's of Liberty. On August 1, 1776 he gave a speech to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.
This month this community will focus on Natural Law. What is Natural Law? How is it applied in real world situations? What are the alternatives to Natural Law? These are some of the issues that will be discussed this month.
“The idea of natural law holds that all people, whatever their ethnicity,
culture, or religion, can know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. The idea, for example, of the Golden Rule—do unto others as you
would have them do unto you—is understood as a principle of moral conduct that everyone can know. While such beliefs are applied to different and changing conditions and problems, the core principles always apply.”
Samuel Gregg
