I am proposing an explanation for observed phenomena (note the word, hypothesis)
You haven't shown anything. Provided no data, nor offered an alternative explanation. You are just spouting off contrary nonsense for reasons only you understand at this point.
Your interpretation of the articles is just bizarre.
From the ACLU article, "Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections."
From the WSJ article "That has created new opportunities for everyone from real estate firms to oil and gas companies to PETA -- anyone, in fact, who might have use for an eye-in-the-sky, but doesn't have the money to hire a pilot and a plane. But the dawning era of cheap, private surveillance is leading a lot of states to ask how these private drones should be regulated."
Wanna bet PETA sees a restriction, but law enforcement and energy companies won't?
And your observation on the Alternet article only makes sense if you consider information a drone collects as being something other than data. Which I suppose there is a remote possibility you actually believe, but that the rest of the planet knows is wrong. Data is data.
I'm unsure what your motivation and message are here.
Are you saying that a surveillance state won't use drones to watch their own citizens? A patently silly idea.
Are you saying that a surveillance state wouldn't use propaganda in order to make the intrusion more acceptable?
Or are you saying that Amazon is really-really going to deliver packages to private homes using flying robots with multiple fast-rotating blades?
I'll admit to being paranoid about the surveillance state, but I wonder if you would admit to being gullible about what the cats are bringing to you through the Internet tubes.
= new reply since forum marked as read