bonal Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I happen to see one of these up close (don't ask me how). It was unbelievable what they had onboard. Why can't I get a job to fly one of them? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk An FBI buddy of mine told me they were going to offer you the job but after checking you out on MS they feared you would only track down fat chicks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 The Federal Government is mass collecting ALL data from phones (cell and landline...cell only, don't know) and SAVING the data. I have heard that now smart t.v.'s with a microphone can also be used...as can i-pads...etc...IN YOUR HOME. I have ZERO problem with the Federal Government, identifying and getting in front of a judge requesting to surveill an individual or individuals with probable cause. Surveilling all of America, having local police have the ability to surveill phones NOPE! We as U.S. citizens have the right to privacy in our homes. That someone on here gets pleasure from eavesdropping on others private phone calls is creepy to me and speaks to that persons character or lack thereof. The conversation switched to include drone use in US and the future use of drones based on the increase in technology to have vehicles that can remain on station WAY longer than Cessna's. Un-piloted. Just loitering in air space running on solar power collecting "data". Maybe where you shop, what you buy. Where you eat. What you eat. It is a brave new world regarding marketing and privacy expectations. Most don't care. I do. It is sold as necessary, like cell-phones in the pockets of students while they are in the class-room. It is fundamentally changing America. It is eroding individual freedom and liberty. It is NOT preventing baddies from doing bad things. Baddies will always do bad things. Don't hang around or live with baddies and you might make it to see the police big brother Orwellian-Terminator state of America. It's coming to a living room near you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Israel is even better. Probably 15 minutes from curb side to gate. In the mean time, you get to chat with 3 different guys/gals, once again, professionals. Simple questions and profiling. The key is prior profiling. And they have a LOT of experience having done security checks for many years before 2011. I still tell the story about my first trip there in 1974. Brought into a security room where the first thing the guy checking me did was ask me my name. In Hebrew. In a way that had me utterly convinced he already knew I understood the language (I was conversant but not fluent) and much, much more, even though I bought my ticket the day before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 An FBI buddy of mine told me they were going to offer you the job but after checking you out on MS they feared you would only track down fat chicks The rumor I heard was that with all that equipment on board, there would be no room for any of my fat chicks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Does the FBI operating a fleet of aircraft (Mostly Cessna's) under a shell front company to surveill over cities bother anybody? Does the 70% fail on finding items (like guns/grenades) that plants took past TSA checkpoints bother anybody? OR is it like I think and it bothers Nobody. I don't like it. I don't know anyone that likes it. Congress will not fix it. The system is way broken. --And no it doesn't bother me. I can't fix it, so I don't loose sleep over it. But mark my words. If the presidential election is between the son and brother of a former president, and the wife of a former president, I will start planning my move from the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 The key is prior profiling. And they have a LOT of experience having done security checks for many years before 2011. I still tell the story about my first trip there in 1974. Brought into a security room where the first thing the guy checking me did was ask me my name. In Hebrew. In a way that had me utterly convinced he already knew I understood the language (I was conversant but not fluent) and much, much more, even though I bought my ticket the day before. I love the way Isreali security works. There is no lines at their airports? You know why? They present a target to the baddies. If you fail you initial screening, they bring you into a room (so if you have a bomb, it will be contained). No large congregations of people. More likely than than not, you'll be out in a few minutes and on your way. El Al has had zero security issues since they implemented this in the 70s. Whenever I travel there, it's always my policy to answer all questions truthfully. They are so well trained at spotting a lier. Bet you they make some good poker players. When I was younger, before I settled down, a guy asked me the purposes of my visit. I said I'm going to wake, bake, sit on the beach and try to get laid. He laughed and gave me some pointers about both getting laid and getting weed. Two weeks later, on my way back, he happened to be working and asked me how my conquests went. That's security, that's good memory. I guess they must have started a file on me, because ever since, I just fly right past all the checkpoints. Try to make it to Tel Aviv once a year. Now, if one could only get a BLT there, it would be perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I don't like it. I don't know anyone that likes it. Congress will not fix it. The system is way broken. --And no it doesn't bother me. I can't fix it, so I don't loose sleep over it. But mark my words. If the presidential election is between the son and brother of a former president, and the wife of a former president, I will start planning my move from the country. Or Bernie, who wants to tax me at 90%. Glad to have a EU passport, too. Never though in my entire life that I would be escaping US of A back to EU in order to lower my tax rate and escape a hereditary monarchy...Now it's a distinct possibility...Maybe if Chelsea married into the Bush family, we could just skip the whole election freak show and cancel them permanently...At least it would be honest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I didn't even read all of that, Scott. You are watching too much TV. All the best, Jim I watch very little T.V. Jim. Senator Grassley just today (on radio) discussed the importance of protecting individual's right to privacy in their pursuit of baddies using GA Aircraft. I see the "progressive" view of the future. It is NOT science-fiction. The use of unmanned surveillance craft on US soil is an eventuality if Federal Government remains unchecked. I care not whether you choose to "not agree" and discount my thinking and assumption of the future as inaccurate. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. Individual Freedom and Right to Privacy is mandated by our Constitution. Due process. Search and seizure. Imminent Domain. All under attack with the machine in control and gaining power and size. The checks and balances are only as good as citizens ability and desire to elect accountable representatives and the providing of oversight to ensure that the rule of law is followed and not supplanted to "Keep us Safe". Will we rule technology and govern with the rights of the individual as paramount or will we live in fear and yield our individual rights for "safety". I know where I think we are going... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Right to Privacy is mandated by our Constitution Scalia, Thomas and Alito disagree with you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujet Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 That exact aircraft was based out of my home airport, F45, about 2 years ago. It's a well equipped Cessna 182 with a fully articulated FLIR camera mounted on the LH rear fuselage. I met the pilots daily at the FBO and they were total, complete, and utter (you fill in the bad word) . I'm not an anti government guy and I want our boys to have the very best equipment necessary to do their jobs. However, when those in authority behave in such a manner, they lose all credibility with me. This is not East Germany and they are not the Stazi secret police. I don't appreciate being threatened by our government agents. Back then, I did look up the registration and try to find out a little about the company it was registered to. All of it was "make believe". Our government is not behaving well. My hangar is at the approach end of 26L, so I get a very good view of airport operations. These guys were making multiple daily flights of a few hours each. One day, I took off just after them on my way to my TN property. They remained low and I prefer to go way up (for my aircraft, that's over 10,500 feet) . We both headed North up near the Florida coast. Since they were low, and slightly faster (since they were not climbing) , I was able to keep them in view below me, for quite some time. They flew from F45, to Port Saint Lucie and then flew in circles over the neighborhood. At which time, I lost them due to overflying them. I'd speculate they were looking for grow houses using the FLIR and installed software/hardware. It was a setup mounted like this one below. However the FLIR was much larger on the particular aircraft at F45. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujet Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 To answer the OP's question. Yes, it bothers me. I'm not at all sure the government has the Constitutional authority to do much of what it does. This specific example included. But to make it clear as to why I believe this is so, we need to look at some actual numbers. First, we are living in a time where fewer people are killed due to war (mil and civilian) than since the ancient roman times. Likewise, terrorism, while it makes the news, kills very few people worldwide or nationwide. 911 was catastrophic, certainly. However, 911, from a risk assessment standpoint, was largely ineffective. Let's put that in perspective. On September 11, 2001 (14 years ago, by the way) 0.0000084 percent of the population was killed. And, a large terrorist attack has not happened since. So, we MUST consider the following years as part of the actual "risk" factor. Including the 911 attacks, a late 20th and 21'st Century individual American's chance of being a victim of terrorism can be quantified. The number is.... One in Four Million over the last 40 years. Or, One in 1.6 Billion annually. It's so small a number, it's "almost" not worthy of consideration using "risk based assessment" methodology!!!! We are safe. Period. End of story. Safer than we've ever been. And, it's not due to the FBI's recent unconstitutional actions. It's due to our grandfather's sacrifices during WWII. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujet Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Scalia, Thomas and Alito disagree with you... I don't care what SCOTUS thinks. They are very often wrong. And utterly unconstitutional decisions have been the norm since the Civil War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 My $0.02 worth of opinion 1) the term "terrorism" seems to be applied incredibly liberally by your government agencies. A crazy guy plotting to behead a police ísn't really an act of terrorism. It's just some crazy guy doing what crazy guy would do. 2) and when you shift the goal posts and redefine terms this way, you create an impression of the pervasiveness of terrorism (thanks Fox News!). This simply gives your government and its agencies plenty of justification to intrude on your privacy and to violate your constitutional rights. And their arguments almost always boil down to this - well if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...ad nauseam 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 My $0.02 worth of opinion 1) the term "terrorism" seems to be applied incredibly liberally by your government agencies. A crazy guy plotting to behead a police ísn't really an act of terrorism. It's just some crazy guy doing what crazy guy would do. 2) and when you shifting the goal posts and redefine terms this way, you create an impression of the pervasiveness of terrorism. This simply gives your government and its agencies plenty of justification to intrude on your privacy and to violate your constitutional rights. And their arguments almost always boil down to this - well if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...ad nauseam I tend to agree. The term "terrorism" is inappropriate and is overused. The definition of the term is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." By this definition almost all powerful nations and some not so powerful ones engage in it! Not just individuals or groups but governments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 O.K...We are getting off the path of the original post that focused on FBI using secretive tactics flying GA over cities and the ineffective screening by TSA...But, What is the definition of terrorism? If we are "at war" and want to "eliminate" terrorists are the following not acts of terrorism? 1. US Army Major mass shooting of U.S. Army soldiers in Texas? 2. Attempted attack on "Draw Mo" gathering using rifles (stopped by police officer) 3. Follower that was going to be-head organizer of "Draw Mo" that settled for killing boys in blue, 'cause they are easy. These actions by individuals may be lone gunman, small groups of domestic US dwellers, but isn't this terrorism? Are these not terrorist acts? Fox has an agenda to counter the Big G agenda that they are NOT acts of terrorism. I am not losing sleep worrying about an ISIS attack on US soil...but I won't be surprised if an organized 911 type event occurs...All that will do is rally US citizenry to wage war against whoever Big G wants to spend some money on. Agree or disagree, I don't care but surely you realize that networks and Big G have agendas...Hey, there is a tornado watch somewhere in the US? Really, that is now network news? Agenda 101... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKlott Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 So are we "free" or do we merely have the illusion of freedom?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 I think the best answer to that is that we are free but the government can easily take that away from all of us. The difference is, in a dictatorship, no reasons will be given whilst, in a democratic free press political system, justification - whether true or not - will be needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpg Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 I think the best answer to that is that we are free but the government can easily take that away from all of us. The difference is, in a dictatorship, no reasons will be given whilst, in a democratic free press political system, justification - whether true or not - will be needed. They can Have MY Freedom when They PRY it from MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!! A free press political system aint worth warm spit Without an ARMED Citizenry Ready and Willing To STAND!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Armed Citizens? You do realise you are up against drones and F-18s, right? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 I have a very close relative who is an FBI agent. They use the planes for survailance of suspects or groups with a court order. This thread is interesting in light of what "we" as pilots are willingly giving up in the way of freedom with our tacit approval of the tracking of our every move-from our start up parking place to our shut down parking place, on every flight, no matter where we go, with our acceptance of ADSB. Our every move will be tracked and recorded from now on and, made available to the general public in real time via N number searchable websites. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 As I said in your other thread Cliffy I am not buying in on the ADSB-Out Kool-Aide. I am out of C airspace where I currently recide when the mandate kicks in. No ADSB...for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoder Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 They need to go back to profiling people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Armed Citizens? You do realise you are up against drones and F-18s, right? Hey Tommy, quick question-How has the use of air power and drones worked for the U.S. in Iraq post occupation? How has the "J.V." armed with company grade weapons fared? There is a place for Air-Power. Air superiority is NOT the winning formula in a protracted engagement against a force committed to a cause. Go talk to some Vietnam vets... Air supremacy. A cog in the wheel, but NOT the Hub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRM Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Does the FBI operating a fleet of aircraft (Mostly Cessna's) under a shell front company to surveill over cities bother anybody? Does the 70% fail on finding items (like guns/grenades) that plants took past TSA checkpoints bother anybody? It doesn't bother me because I am one of those who says if you have nothing to hide, why be bothered? If you have something to hide, do it in a place where you have a right to an expectation of privacy. You do not have that right in your backyard. So if you are cooking meth on your BBQ, or filling 55 gallon drums with ammonium nitrate on your patio, then be prepared to be visited. The state, acting on my behalf, has the duty to ask you about suspicious activity that you are engaged in. Like why is your electric bill so ginormous? Is it because your kids keep leaving the lights on, your wife won't keep her hands off the thermostat, or your pot lamps are not LEDs? What does bother me is the incompetency of the state. FAA, TSA, FCC, Oval Office, Congress--just pick one. If find your questions suspicious...where do you live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 It bothers me because they are not being open regarding what they are doing (to protect the public) and why. Are they using the planes to combat meth labs in cities? I don't think so, but I WOULD like to know. The state is not acting on my behalf when they regulate and monitor power usage. It is simply another mandate to control and punish. Do we have issues with backyard BBQ meth cooking and ANFO on the patio? I believe that ingrediants are monitored pretty closely. No problem with that. Yes, BIG G efficiency or lack there of. THAT is an issue. What is that last sentence asking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.