There are many sides to this.  I am very leery, in fact with some aspects that have made it out in public, outright disdainful of U.S. agencies utterly regarding the people of the United States to essentially be enemies and regarded as such in terms of taking way too many liberties in spying.

However, in regards to drones, the determination of right versus wrong isn't so clearcut.  Pull back a bit from the question of "is it right or wrong for agencies in the United States to use unmanned drones to spy?" to more basic questions such as "who owns the air above private property?"

One might be tempted to declare that private land owners should own the air above their property, but such a basic declaration would utterly destroy all air travel, as air travel can only happen on the premise that the property owned by private property owners does not extend very far in the sky ... there are really no paths for aircraft to follow between cities in the U.S. that would not take those aircraft directly over private property.  All of those aircraft have windows, and cameras and binoculars are not forbidden for passengers on aircraft, which leads to the reality:  there is nothing at all to stop anyone from spying on anyone from the air in the U.S.

It is well understood that it is not only the authority of law enforcement, but indeed their duty to peer into suspicious activity regardless of whether the activity occurs on public or private property; in the olden days, it was policemen on foot or horseback looking out for crooks and criminals while patrolling.  Even early on, it was realized law enforcement authorities must be allowed some "reasonable" level of authority to enter private property without express permission nor even a warrant on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion."  "Reasonable"-ness is, of course, a vague descriptor ... if you were to define a restrictive standard for what is reasonable, what would it be?

In my home state where I currently reside, Washington state, there are some terrible wildfires burning out of control in the drier portion of the state east of the Cascade mountains.  "Drone" aircraft are being used to help monitor the extent of the fires, which direction they are burning toward and how fast they are spreading which has triggered a number of debates.  The smoke and dynamic nature of the fires means flights even by seasoned professional pilots trained to deal with emergencies can experience a conflux of circumstances that make flying around ongoing hazards, such as these wildfires, much more hazardous than normal flight.  Is the government use of "drone" aircraft not just or reasonable?

What of the case of using drones to try and suss out terrorists or other armed and dangerous fugitives on the loose, such as Christopher Dorner (the former LAPD cop turned homicidal maniac who murdered the daughter and her fiance of an LAPD police captain whom had represented Dorner in a disciplinary case hearing [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner ])?

I'm certainly not going to argue that any and all use of drone aircraft is justified, nor that U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies have not overstepped their bounds, but I find it very frustrating when someone pursues a course of action based on a gross oversimplification without considering the arguments they are making in a broader context and taking even basic steps to ensure their arguments are logical, reasonable and sound.

Well, the only thing that confuses me is why, if you're not doing anything illegal or immoral, etc., would you even worry about this? If you are doing something illegal or immoral, etc., then you don't deserve any privacy in my opinion, and I sure hope you get caught by the very measures identified here.

so if the goverment is doing nothing illegal or immoral here, why do they think they have something to hide? 

or what about cameras in your living room? you have nothing to hide after all.

Desiring privacy should not mean, de facto, that you must have something nefarious 'to hide'.  But that's exactly what it means to National Sports Authority. 

The NSA, FBI, CIA and other government agencies exist for a purpose. I am terribly sorry that most Americans don't understand that purpose.  The safety and security of this country and its people are far more important than anything being discussed here. Just my opinion. Having served this country for 22 years makes you understand things like this a little better.

It's the failing of people working in a position of artificial peril to lose grasp of the realities of the problems we face.

9/11 was a month of driving, we wont take away someone's license and throw their ass in jail for getting caught driving drunk, but we'll spy on every facet of the peoples lives just in case some towel head blows themselves up and fails horribly at killing as many people as they could have just driving a car through a crowd of people.

Terrorists have never been a significant threat to safety.  Bathtubs, wall outlets, swimming pools, there are a great many things vastly more dangerous to the population than terrorists.  Excusing an abusive, power hungry government filled with corrupt agencies that routinely violate the Constitution, just for a little safety from Islamic terrorists that have, collectively over their entire history, killed far less people in the US than automobile accidents do each year, is a mark of insanity.

I'm all for killing off radical islamists wherever we can find them, but my interest ends where infringing on my rights over something far less likely than being struck by lightning.  A surveillance riddled police state is far more dangerous to the population than the terrorists are.

Not much you can do with a cowardly populace that would eagerly give up liberty for freedumb.

Most traffic fatalities are the result of criminally negligent driving, and I find any ready dismissal of deaths due to negligence or margininalizing them as less than deaths from a single act to be patently absurd.  And I would find it laughable, if it were not so tragic, that so many forget that the founding fathers were the 'extremists' of their day, lighting an armed and bloody rebellion.

Deaths from traffic and lack of universal access to health care greatly outnumber terrorist deaths, and we could do a lot more for the same amount of dollars to reduce the death tolls from either than in retribution for a terrorist act (and thus far, we only seem to be inciting more and more people around the globe to hate us and one day act out on the hatred we are bringing on ourselves).  Anyone whining about social safety nets or domestic infrastructure spending as 'too much' needs to take a look at even just the dollar cost of the unholy 'war on terror,' and not just training troops or building bombs -- more than 50,000 troops have been injured, and many of those will require specialized care for decades.  Imagine if we spent just a fraction of the amount of dollars we spend warmongering on improving traffic safety or universal health care at home ... imagine how many lives would be saved.

I'm really not crazy on this culture that seems to prefer to wage war while flipping the bird at the notion of taking care of our people and saving actual lives.

Not in the United States.  Hate speech is as protected as any other speech, such as the obscene hate speech spewed by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals for soldiers.

The only real limitations on free speech in the U.S. is speech intended to cause more direct harm (i.e., shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater to create a stampede that gets people hurt), copyrighted material, libel and slander (written and spoken speech, respectively, which is provably untrue and is intended to cause harm to a person's reputation), and threats against specific people.

I did not know about the hate speech prevention law Doc, thanks. I am glad it exists.

Hate speech is speech.  Just like hate crimes are crimes.  Distinction without a difference.  Hate speech laws have no place in a country with a First Amendment.  What ever happened to 'Sticks and stones...' anyway?

Okay, so in YOUR mind, you're doing nothing illegal, immoral or wrong.  Okay, Fine, but that's your interpretation, and while you may  be entirely correct based on past lawas and moral views, the standing government of the day and its bureaucrats may see things entirely differently.  That's when you yourself could run afoul of the law - without even realising it - so would it be fair to say that whatever the authorities decide to inflict upon you for  non-compliance such as electroshock treatments, anal probes and bamboo shoots under the fingernails are in fact justified?

Me thinks you would protest vehemently and denounce the government for being too heavy handed, etc... not that it would do you any good.  The presumption of innocence in a paranoid country with a paranoid government that employs paranoid twats who take great delight in making others people's lives a misery is less than a mere fallacy, it's a downright fechen lie.

Sorry, Tom, its all well and good to take a holier than thou stance here, but you may be one in the next batch of victims of the next governmental, bureaucratic witch hunt simply because your initials simply fit some computer mopdel some FBI, CIA twat fed into the computer to justify his/her position and high paid salary

In a perfect world, mate, but in the US you can forget that... and it filters down to local law enforcement, local government, even the stores and supermarket chains you shop in.  Don't believe me?  Do some research on the store surveillance staff and the equipment at their disposal to identify potential thieves, etc, and just how many innocent people are extremely badly treated by civilian security personel.  Believe me, you'd be totally disgusted at some of the shit that goes on in your country under the guise of 'protection'  You might not get the exposes on TV over there, but we get to see them now and then, and Ill be frank, some of what I've seen horrifies me... cos some of the twats in power here seem to think it's acceptable behaviour

For me the whole issue surrounding 'speech' and the freedom (or not) thereof is much simpler.  I see speech as either having constructive or destructive properties.  I believe one can completely and even vehemently disagree with someone else and yet ensure their speech doesn't devolve into destructive vitriol.  It is my view that 'hate speech laws' and others like it amount to not much more than a Band-Aid to the continual attempts in society to see just how destructive one can allow their speech / interaction with others to get before someone puts the brakes on.

Now going waaaay off topic........I see the real issues there being the loss of shame for one's own behavior (when inappropriate) that society has become all too familiar with, the ease with which we (all) seem to resort to destructive speech / behavior towards others and how accepting we are of the resulting enjoyment (schadenfreude) society seems to take from 'dismantling' each other (in terms of viewpoint or position).