Civil Liberties

What a silly response. You can sake for a fuck all day, but marginalizing people who are cautious about propaganda just makes you gullible.
Your brother in law probably doesn't torture people, but I bet he owns a board and a damp cloth. Why weren't you dismissing water boarding when media outlets started making that appear acceptable? Oh wait, I bet you were unhappy with that effort to make torture mainstream, despite your in-law's need for counter space and washcloths.
I'm hypothesizing (note that word, hypothesize) that the appearance, recently, of hexapod drones in more popular media could be an attempt to calm the fears of people concerned with an invasion of privacy.
I suppose, in order to support the hypothesis, there should be additional evidence, such as an increased use of drones by domestic law enforcement.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones
Also, lawmakers would be passing legislation to limit the use of drones by private citizens while encouraging the use by those who would benefit from that sort of propaganda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/18/can-state-laws-protect-you-from-being-watched-by-drones/
There might also be hints of a partnership between corporate and government interests to support a surveillance state.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/growing-surveillance-state-has-all-appearances-public-private-partnership
So, besides your brother-in-law's boat and roof issues (for which he may be able to use a drone for only a little while longer, until it becomes illegal), do you have anything to actually prove the hypothesis wrong?