>Get off your high horse.

They aren't gloating, they are lamenting that no one seems to care about their opinion.

I feel exactly the same way with regards to computer privacy and militaristic authority creep.

This cycle gets really de-motivating:

1) New technology X is developed,

2) Some warn while others celebrate

3) Technology is used a single time for nefarious/unbounded reasons above and beyond the original described use.

4) Some think the new uses are obvious and warranted, Some reel from the lack of over-sight and spread of X

5) Novel use of technology beyond original described use becomes common-place and standard.

6) Normalization of non-standard use diminishes or mutes opinion of those originally concerned all-together.

We've seen this cycle over and over again. Stingrays, drones, less-than-lethal weaponry, armed and armored military vehicles, sonic weaponry, social media doxxing.

Where is the line drawn on equipment and tactics used in-state?

Lethality?

LTL weapons are shown time and time again to be anything but non-lethal.

Total loss of privacy?

ARGUS-derived drones can see pedestrians with exacting details, and we can track the rest with the ELINT equipment on the same bird.

>Yes, we should be concerned about any new tool, but there is a risk to any technology that it will be used against us.

Here's the rub : these technologies are being showcased and purposed for use against civilians. There is no longer a waiting period for 'juice worth the squeeze' : we now know the juice from these fruits-of-labor is poison for most civvies, and the measured goal is now 'subduing power' or 'crowd dispersal' There is an industry formed around these types of systems, and they are all racing each other for the newest and greatest devices for 'in-home peace keeping'.

There is no situation in which a citizen of the US can be for anti-protest specialized weaponry and equipment and expect the same level of power with regards to protests and civil disobedience themselves.

And some wonder, with every piece of legislation that increases authority over-reach or budget: 'well, if they don't seem to care about the lethality of LTL weaponry -- when are these groups going to pull out the real weaponry?'.

How far are we away from those surveillance drones up high carrying hellfire air-to-ground systems 'to keep the peace'?

How far are we from those in authority choosing to use such systems, even as a strong-arm maneuver? How far are we from being OK as a society with some being blown to smithereens because of property destruction and social outrage?

Some of us may have different views on the distance from where we are now to the future I painted in the previous paragraph, but a few of us, myself included, are pretty worried that may be closer than some of us realize.

>They did already have an equivalent technology.

Equivalency comparisons are of no use. More similar technologies that have overlapping functionality allow for a broader range of choices when peacekeepers ask for authority in using such equipment. If there are 5 products that have a similar functionality, that's in essence five different attempts that can be made by law-makers to woo local authorities and judges into cooperation with said technology.