SudelPool

In my area many Kroger parking lots and other high-risk areas already have 24/7 police surveillance via permanently deployed "tech stations" in form of a small trailers with antenna and camera tower. Without aggressive policing urban life becomes impossible. Too much degeneracy is taking hold.

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson "doubt a drone will just hover over my backyard.." That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Persistent Stare. Look it up. As prosumer grade drone tech advances exponentially, municipalities will absolutely be using 24/7 aerial reconnaissance in the very near future.

Last night the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approved a contract with Flock Safety for drones to respond to police service calls. There was immense public backlash over this decision, but before the board could hear the public’s grievances, they removed the first public comment period. This only left one public comment at the end AFTER votes had taken place. Commissioner Powell made the motion to remove the public comment and Chair Woodward refused to do a roll call vote to confirm there was a sufficient number of votes for this change. Originally the Flock contract was for a free trial period until December and the county would be charged 2.5 million for two years if they did not opt out. This item received less than three minutes of consideration in committee and the sheriff’s office assured commissioners that the public’s data would be protected. However, that was no where in Flock’s contract. Commissioner Bob Hoffman offered an amendment to the item to only allow for the trial period without an automatic renewal, ensuring the data is owned by Oakland County Sheriff and not Flock, and the drones can only be used for calls for service or officer generated. The amendment was approved and the pilot contract was approved. This resulted in outbursts throughout the meeting and eventually a 3.5 hour public comment period at the end. Residents often spoke of the invasion of privacy, concerns about hacking the Flock system, and fear of constant surveillance. The meeting started 45 minutes late and lasted to almost midnight.

@lpmi @AnnaRMatson I respect the principled stance. Many citizens probably prefer drones preventing punks breaking into cars at night over the police-state fear. I guess that's what democracy is for.

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson What is the logical conclusion of what you would rather have? A police state where every move is watched, where the government will still fail to protect, worse yet it will use these tools for control of peaceful people Dangerous is the slaves life for it is not theirs to live

@boondockdaddio @AnnaRMatson I get that concern, but I think it's safe to assume there'll be same guardrails. I doubt a drone will just hover over my backyard filming my daughter. This feels like the EU web cookie laws. We're just exchanging the appearance of privacy for less safety.

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson The main problem with drones and FLOCK is invasion of privacy and harassment. It's basically the government watching citizens 24/7/365. It would be like me following you around with a video camera all day everyday.

@lpmi @AnnaRMatson "Dangerous freedom". That's fair. Bringing that to its logical conclusion means no police at all, just let me arm myself. No seatbelts, no speed limits. Me personally, I'd rather have every gun shot or 911 call attract a drone like shit attracts flies. Within seconds.

Officer safety, crime prevention/resolution are after fundamental rights and principles. Just because the government finds it easier or convenient to complete its goes does not mean individuals should suffer. How are these systems not going to be abused or used to harm people?

@lpmi @AnnaRMatson There are some impressive success stories from across the country where drones proved helpful for public safety. Las Vegas NV and Glendale AZ for instance. Increasing officer safety. Increasing crime resolve rate. Preventing crime trough presence. fox5vegas.com/2026/02/19/fox…

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson What is the argument to have these systems? This is the question. It is for the government to prove that, is this a legitimate government action, it will not infringe on rights, it is nessesary, that these systems work, and there are no risks for abuse.

@prolificinvent @AnnaRMatson So urban drones should be treated predominantly as a safety hazard? No police drones. No amazon delivery drones. Just toy drones over your own private property.

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson Public safety...drones crash all the time and sometimes cause vehicle accidents and bodily injury.

@w8lftrAB @Jane_Doe82 Yeah, each state does. Seems to range from 1% to 85%.

@sudelpool @Jane_Doe82 If you dont know shit, its cool, but stop pretending you do. Each state has land that is federal land and thus, under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, like the forest service. You people are incredible in the worst way possible

Literally why

@RealDebunkThis @AnnaRMatson Do you mean "armed" drones, ala skynet, start patrol the streets after the technocratic dictatorship has been announced?

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson I'm just curious to see the Democrats and Republicans Plans for Cessation of Power. Is that a conspiracy theory?

@RealDebunkThis @AnnaRMatson Okay. They are a technology that can be hacked and compromised. Understood. Is there anything else? On the plus side you can increase response time. Deescalate police chases. Scale up police presence at malls, schools, or high-risk areas.

@sudelpool @AnnaRMatson For the simpletons who lack Math to add things up or Vision because they can't see their nose in spite of their face? youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY

@Sexydrogo @Jane_Doe82 Isn't having a federal forest a perpetual money glitch? An East to West money transfer?

@sudelpool @Jane_Doe82 So, higher state tax? Clearly, the tariff isn't enough.....

@Daenakins1 @Jane_Doe82 It's an example. I assume it's Montana, but it doesn't really matter to me.

@sudelpool @Jane_Doe82 I am not talking about California.

@grok @Anabana_fofana @Jane_Doe82 So all the land on fire in California is state land, or is the federal forest service and blm just delinquent on their responsibility of fire prevention? Who is not doing their job?

Yes, the US Forest Service has primary federal authority to manage National Forest System lands (federal property) under statutes like the Organic Act of 1897 and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. States cannot interfere with or override those decisions—federal supremacy applies, as affirmed in cases like Light v. United States (1911). Collaboration happens (e.g., on wildfires), but ultimate control stays federal.

@Anabana_fofana @Jane_Doe82 Ana, I don't like that we just wasted 200+ billion on a war for Israel. @grok, is the federal forest service free to manage and treat federal forest land as they see fit, free from state interference?

@sudelpool @Jane_Doe82 “I get it’s federal land” then it should be protected FEDERALLY. The mental gymnastics you people jump through to justify why anything good for us can’t be funded but don’t bat an eyelash at the TRILLIONS of dollars we pour into wars that do nothing good for the average American.

@Daenakins1 @Jane_Doe82 Why is California on fire, if the Forest Service could just go in there and clean up their stuff, and sell of some timbers to pay for it? It seems to me as if federal tax dollars are squandered on fire fighters while the state government prevents them from doing anything.

@sudelpool @Jane_Doe82 You know which state is one of the most (if not the most) forested? Do you want leadership in that state managing the forests?

I get its federal land. But this has become an enormous money transfer machine. You have people in New York State fund fire mitigation and forest management in Montana. Why do my tax dollars fund 8000 Forest Service employees in Montana? Some people in Montana want to profit through tourism from those public lands. Other want to drill or build data centers. It's a mess of incentives and responsibilities. So have Congress come in and actually codify something. If Trump can just dissolve it, some president just made all this up with a stroke of a pen.

@Jane_Doe82 Because its federal dollars going to states for something that's a state responsibility. Normally a functioning state government would step in today and have the State Forest Service take over those employees and responsibilities. Normal "Federal Democracy stuff".

@ggreenwald Glenn, it’s normal to exploit things like this for negotiations. They might lose their toll booth in the straight for a security guarantee. It’s not pretty. And of course hypocritically. But it’s normal.

But even if JD is correct about htis "good faith misunderstanding," the question now for the US is: What's more important: (a) Trump's desire for a cease-fire deal to stop this war or (b) Israel's desire to massacre people in Lebanon as much as it wants?

Oh, OK, JD. The cease-fire never covered Lebanon even though the Pakistani Prime Minister who mediated the deal and was told to announce it explicitly said it did. Somehow, according to him, all attacks had to stop against the US's allies (Gulf State tyrannies) but not Iran's.

@nicksortor Having Lebanon included will cost them their tolls. Simple negotiating.

🚨 JUST IN: JD Vance says Lebanon was NOT supposed to be included in their two-week ceasefire, but believes the Iranians THOUGHT Lebanon was included This comes after Iran accused Israel of VIOLATING the peace deal with massive strikes in Lebanon today "First of all, I actually think and there is a lot of bad faith negotiation and a lot of bad faith propaganda going on. I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians THOUGHT that the ceasefire included Lebanon and it just didn't. We NEVER made that promise, we NEVER indicated that would be the case. What we said is that the cease-fire would be focused on Iran and the cease-fire would be focused on America's allies, both Israel and the gulf Arab states."

@DavidOndrej1 That would be against German Law. Being a patriot is against the law in Germany.

send them anyway