Drones Tracking Americans. Thoughts? - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

13ball · 02-26-2012, 05:24 PM

lol. Now I love A_C_Slater almost as much as I love Kelly Kapowski.

Spoiler:

pvn · 02-26-2012, 05:29 PM

hahaha as soon as I saw this thread I knew phill would be all up in here with the "no biggie imo"

[Phill] · 02-26-2012, 05:31 PM

Hahahaha, as soon as i saw pvn was last to reply i knew he would be in here adding zero content or even vaguely addressing the topic.

Pwn_Master · 02-26-2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_C_Slater

Yeah cause that has never happened. And yes that is what's ultimately at stake here.

Umm, Syria in total don't give a **** mode have killed like 10,000 people in a year. Hell, even in the Holocaust they killed like 6 million people. Not to trivialize these numbers, but yeah, pretty clear you just pulled 30,000,000 out of your ass.

spaceman Bryce · 02-26-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

but who will track the drones?

smaller drones will track other drones and vice versa. In ten years these will be much cheaper and safer. It will be like a "cross-tracking" scenario. Do not worry your safety will be assured. Resistance is futile.

DblBarrelJ · 02-26-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

My interpretation as a non-lawyer is that the height stuff isnt about skill per se, but about licenses and the current legal framework on the altitude, the idea is that they wouldnt be flying really low for safety reasons, but these could be flipped so that they couldnt have high altitude units such as what i assume the one the Iranians found a couple months ago probably did.

The "naked eye" part of the other ruling also seems to be about limiting high altitude monitoring too as its clear they fly at a height using high grade camera equipment that the literal interpretation of naked eye isnt in use, but its possible that has been expanded upon in another case in a lower court and not challenged?

Had a quick email convo with a friend of mine at the DA's office, turns out LirvA pretty much unintentionally (and likely baked out of his skull) wafflecrushed the issue with this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

do the police have to get my consent to fly a spycamera in the air?

do I have to get consent from the police so I can fly my spycamera in the air?

From my conversation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Lawyer

Basically. Both the SC rulings you reference are under the banner of "plain view". [.....] The guiding principle of "plain view" doctrine is that anyone can see it. A thorough reading of those two rulings will show an underlying theme of "Anyone could have seen" whatever the particulars of the case entail.

Drones do not, at present fall under these rulings in my opinion. Anyone, policeman, doctor, accountant whomever can obtain a pilots license and purchase a Cessna or a small helicopter and fly it recreationally. This is certainly not the case with "Drones" or other long range unmanned aircrafts. This is a murky issue, as I believe ruling would go against allowing evidence located as a violation of plain view doctrine. I do believe unmanned aircraft could be a useful tool for law enforcement with a warrant, performing surveillance currently akin to wiretaps and GPS monitoring, etc.

Regards,

Barrin6 · 02-26-2012, 06:17 PM

Syria is just killing all the hippies who are protesting that all their problems are a result of the gov't's fault. When in actuality they need to look at themselves and get a job instead of demanding welfare checks.

Besides, who cares if they have drones in the sky. We ain't got nothing to hide. It's not like they are wasting our tax dollars or anything since only the top 5% wealthiest people pay for all our gov't programs.

Sholar · 02-26-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Current case law is confusing on this. Could only find two SCOTUS cases which reference this:

Florida v Riley which states;

I don't know if this little addition will add a problem to the issue, but we'll see.

The other California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207(1986) states;

Now, these drones have capabilities far beyond "The naked eye", so this one is going to be interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Had a quick email convo with a friend of mine at the DA's office, turns out LirvA pretty much unintentionally (and likely baked out of his skull) wafflecrushed the issue with this post

Yes, Kyllo might be the most relevant precedent--at least it's the one that comes to mind for me.

Personally, I think it's time to amend the constitution to put privacy rights on firmer ground. Otherwise, as technology advances, security from government intrusion recedes.

insidemanpoker · 02-26-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Yes, Kyllo might be the most relevant precedent--at least it's the one that comes to mind for me.

Personally, I think it's time to amend the constitution to put privacy rights on firmer ground. Otherwise, as technology advances, security from government intrusion recedes.

Sholar, to bait you just a little, which presidential candidate in either party is most likely to be best on this issue?

DblBarrelJ · 02-26-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Yes, Kyllo might be the most relevant precedent--at least it's the one that comes to mind for me.

Personally, I think it's time to amend the constitution to put privacy rights on firmer ground. Otherwise, as technology advances, security from government intrusion recedes.

I agree. IMO another grounding of the "Plain Sight" rule involves things police do as a routine part of their jobs (drive/walk/traffic stops/enter homes pursuant to complaints). I don't think "Flying drones at 35k feet with high end imaging cameras good enough to pull the VIN off a car window traveling 75mph down I-95" fits into that description of "routine".

Something needs to change. I didn't bring up Kyllo because it speaks to a specific intrusion, a way to, in a sense "see through walls" which hasn't been brought up yet.

Sholar · 02-26-2012, 07:24 PM

insidemanpoker: Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates seem interested in expanding privacy rights. Some of them don't even believe the current constitution protects privacy rights, so I'd have to say those candidates would be the worst.

I'm not really interested in derailing this thread, but you may find it worthy of note that in the cases DblBarrelJ provided, it was not a federal agency conducting the search.

Sholar · 02-26-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I agree. IMO another grounding of the "Plain Sight" rule involves things police do as a routine part of their jobs (drive/walk/traffic stops/enter homes pursuant to complaints). I don't think "Flying drones at 35k feet with high end imaging cameras good enough to pull the VIN off a car window traveling 75mph down I-95" fits into that description of "routine".

Something needs to change. I didn't bring up Kyllo because it speaks to a specific intrusion, a way to, in a sense "see through walls" which hasn't been brought up yet.

Fair enough, the Kyllo part I had in mind was "the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment 'search,' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." (emphasis mine)

Maybe also relevant is US v Jones, but the court's decision there doesn't offer much guidance--at least, I don't have a good sense of it.

DblBarrelJ · 02-26-2012, 07:38 PM

I see what you're saying about "General public use". I'm unaware if drones can "explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion".

If they can, I definitely see the precedent.

I'm unsure of the relevance in Jones, since the length of 24/7 surveillance seems to be a pressing issue.

Sholar · 02-26-2012, 07:47 PM

Unmanned drones are also really good at 24/7 surveillance--it's another way I might distinguish them from a cop in a plane with a telephoto lens.

longmissedblind · 02-26-2012, 07:49 PM

This is an interesting question ldo. A story I posted in the other "drones" thread featured a guy from one of the developing companies basically saying, "this is happening. go ahead an get used to it."

That made me wonder, though, just how much of the air above the land I own to I have rights to? I know there are building restrictions set by many different governments, state and local, but if I'm legally allowed to shoot someone on my property on the ground, what would be the legal dimensions to taking one of these badboys out of my airspace?