Is the following quote considering the legislation of drones and aerial surveillance correct?

Who wrote this, and for what purpose?

It seems terrible slanted (use of the word ‘perverse’ several times) and clearly is trying to persuade people to think one way or another.

It isn’t objective, isn’t based on facts – it’s just repeating some gibberish for some populist reasons.

Bottom line: I can’t take it seriously. It is a whine.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/drones-and-aerial-surveillance-considerations-for-legislatures/

And, it might be wrong-written, let’s say, but it doesn’t mean the law can express itself in such a clear way to prevent any wrongdoings.

But the legislation is rarely tailored in such a way to prevent the harm that advocates fear. In fact, in every state where legislation was passed, the new laws are focused on the technology (drones) not the harm (pervasive surveillance)... this technology centric approach creates perverse results

I don’t know about the particular laws, but I understand the problem of overly specific laws, targeting the means, not the ends. Imagine if we didn’t have a crime of murder, but instead there was a law against killing someone with a knife. When swords are invented, you need a new law against sword-killing. Then guns arrive and you write another law.

Whoops, we forgot poison, and that led to a poisoning fad.That is a perverse result.

@elbanditoroso…the word was “pervasive,” not “perverse.”

@Dutchess_III I think he edited it – it was ‘perverse’ when I first read it,.

@elbanditoroso: I did not certainly edit it. It was “pervasive” in the beginning and “perverse” after. (”(pervasive surveillance). In many cases, this technology centric approach creates perverse results”).

If you search keywords in the webpage of which I gave you the link, you’ll find it’s the exact same text (1st paragraph, if I recall). Now, I don’t intend to admit something I didn’t certainly do, and if you insist I did it, you’re spamming, and I’m going to report you.

As a sidenote, I did edit something, but not the text: just the mention of the footnotes ”[1]” and ”[2]”. If you search on the webpage, you’ll see they’re there. I removed them for purposes of readability.

Perverse and pervasive are both in the original text.