FBI Has Used Drones On Americans To Save A Child... And The Rest Is Secret

from the for-the-children! dept

You may recall a few weeks ago that FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to using drones to spy on Americans (and that there were no rules about using those drones). In response, Senator Rand Paul asked Mueller for details and those have now been sent, saying that the drones have been used 10 times, though they're very, very, very quick to play down the significance of this (and to highlight how they were used to recover a kidnapped 5-year-old -- "for the children!").

The FBI uses UAVS in very limited circumstances to conduct surveillance when there is a specific, operational need. UAVs have been used for surveillance to support missions related to kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive investigations. Since late 2006, the FBI has conducted surveillance using UAVs in eight criminal cases and two national security cases. For example, earlier this year in Alabama, the FBI used UAV surveillance to support the successful rescue of the 5-year-old child who was being held hostage in an underground bunker by Jimmy Lee Dykes. None of the UAVS used by the FBI are armed with either lethal or non--lethal weapons, and the FBI has no plans to use weapons with UAVs. The FBI does not use UAVs to conduct "bulk" surveillance or to conduct general surveillance not related to an investigation or assessment.

Of course, they follow that up by also saying they can't really talk about how they use drones, because, you know, that's secret.

While we share your interest in transparency concerning the use of law enforcement and national security tools, we are not in a position to disclose publicly more detailed information concerning the Bureau's specific use of UAVS. Such additional information is "Law Enforcement Sensitive" or, in some cases, classified, based on the need to protect the effectiveness of this capability in law enforcement and national security matters. We have enclosed a classified addendum that provides more detailed information in response to your inquiry. We request that you not disseminate the information in the addendum without prior consultation with the FBI.

Yeah. So, they use drones "to save the kidnapped hostage children!" and [REDACTED]. That's not particularly comforting.

Filed Under: america, children, drones, fbi, rand paul, robert mueller, surveillance

Is America Losing Its Startup Edge?

from the not-good dept

We've talked, in the past, about the paradox of job creation by the government. Too often the government acts as if "job creation" is about propping up or subsidizing big companies, hoping that they'll hire lots of people. And, intuitively, you can see the appeal there for two reasons. First, it's much easier to think that Giant Telco A will likely hire another 5,000 workers to dig ditches if the government gives them a bunch of money, than it is to think that random startup A will hire 5,000 people. Second, often the disruptive innovations that actually do create economic growth and jobs comes at the expense of legacy companies in older industries. And the fear there is always job losses. So, some new startup comes along with a technology that makes life more efficient and makes stodgy old legacy company obsolete... and upfront you're going to see job cuts at the legacy company, even if the end result is many more jobs (and greater economic efficiency).

But the truth is that if the government wants to really create new jobs, it needs to support the startup ecosystem. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the US Census Bureau last year found that startups really are the key to both gross and net job growth. So if the government really wants to encourage economic growth and new jobs it should be focused on making sure the startup ecosystem is strong and vibrant. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. When we see proposals like SOPA, which will hinder startups by placing tremendous liability on them and scaring off investors, we get worried.

Already, the situation isn't great. While the US certainly has the reputation for being friendly to startups, Aaron DeOliveira, points us to a report that shows that the US is actually 23rd on a list of startups per working-age population within countries that are members of the OECD. Even France is ahead of us.

This does not bode well for the US economy or for job growth. For innovation to thrive, we need the creative destruction and economic and job growth brought about by startups and entrepreneurs. We don't get that when the government is "captured" by the large legacy players who are only focused on "protecting" and defending their turf, rather than fostering innovation, growing the economy and creating jobs.

Filed Under: america, innovation, jobs, startups

MPAA: Real Patriots Don't Share

from the nationalism-as-a-business-model? dept

There has been a war of language and thought going on in the copyright debate for years.  People think in language just as they speak in language, which is why content industry groups have gone to such lengths to pervert nuanced legal language into stacatto and misleading buzzwords crafted purely for public consumption.  This language war is the reason why when I Google the word "piracy", the first page gives me the Wikipedia article for the war act of piracy and then in the news items I get a story about lawmakers wondering if search engines contribute to piracy.

Well, the MPAA, never shy to jump on the hyperbole train, is doing its best to make the debate about patriotism, rather than the actual issues, by cloaking itself in the American flag.  Michael O'Leary, Vice President of the MPAA, spoke at a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property, Competition, and Internet Sub-Comittee (say that three times fast).  Look at the whole quote first:

"The key foundation of American industry, the expectation that hard work and innovation is rewarded,  is imperiled when thieves, whether online or on the street, are allowed to steal America's creative products and enrich themselves along the way.  Rampant theft of American intellectual property puts the livelihoods of the workers who invest time, energy and fortune to create the filmed entertainment enjoyed by millions at risk; to these men and women and their families, digital theft means declining incomes, lost jobs and reduced health and retirement benefits. We believe that rogue sites legislation, combined with the Administration's work with intermediaries and enforcement by the IPR Center, will go a long way towards shutting down the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works and close a gap in the intellectual property law."

Three sentences with so much intellectual dishonesty, subtle word games, and nationalism wrapped up in a tidy knot that it's sickening.  First, to get it out of the way, note the word games being played through the legally incorrect use of the words "thieves", "steal", and "digital theft".  This is the game they play with words and thought.

But more prominent is the plea for American nationalism in his words.  Like so much bad policy before it, COICA legislation (which has been dutifully renamed "rogue sites legislation" by O'Leary, as the word games continue) is being wrapped by supporters in the flag.  We've seen this movie before and we know how it works.  The Patriot Act was wrapped in the American flag (more word games) because if the time spent saying, "This here bill is good for 'Merica" was spent actually explaining to people what it was, the public outcry would be heard loud and clear.  It's the same with COICA, as the MPAA subtlely informs us that taking down "rogue" sites without true due process is somehow as American as Superman and apple pie (pay no attention to the innocents caught in the crossfire).

But as long as O'Leary wants us to pledge allegiance to flag of the Motion Picture Association of America, I have a couple of questions.  Is applauding government censorship American?  Is it American to push around our fellow nations of the world to adopt laws simply because our industry wants them to?  Does the land of the free and the home of the brave really mean tucking your tail between your legs and running to daddy government because you don't know how to maximize your profit margins in the digital world?

I'll tell you what, O'Leary: I'll start taking lessons in patriotism from the MPAA about the same time I accept an invitation to the Ku Klux Klan's symposium on racial tolerance... 

Filed Under: america, language, piracy
Companies: mpaa