Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Surveillance Drones Could Spur Tougher Privacy Laws
An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever been spied on by a surveillance drone? No? Are you sure? Maybe it looked like a hummingbird. Or an insect. Or maybe it was just really high up. Maybe there's one looking in your window right now, and if so, there's no law that says it shouldn't. In a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, Ryan Calo discusses how domestic surveillance drones would fit into the current legal definitions of privacy (and violations thereof), and how these issues could inform the future of privacy policy. The nutshell? Surveillance robots have the potential to fundamentally degrade privacy to such an extent that they could serve as a catalyst for reform."
Only laws I would expect to be passed regarding such things is that it would be legal for them to be used on us, but illegal for us to use them. But perhaps I'm just a cynical bastard.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Bill FRIST, of Tennessee! get it?!?
You still need a warrant if the surveillance is directed at an individual. And if it's just patrolling, how is that any different than a cop walking his beat?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
More likely the frog-in-boiling-water metaphor will apply, as the gradual decline in privacy (up to the present and going forward) prevents most people from noticing just how hot things are getting.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
If Iran's military can neutralize this threat, I'm sure our more curious engineering student could do so as well.
It's nice to talk about laws protecting us from the government, but in truth the only thing holding them back is fear of us.
Any government official, politician, etc promoting and/or using such nonsense without a real warrant process should be offered one of each.
Have you ever been spied on by a surveillance drone? No? Are you sure? Maybe it looked like a hummingbird. Or an insect. Or maybe it was just really high up.
Okay, seriously, maybe this IS a serious issue, and maybe it's more important than just more bullshit analogies involving frogs and boiling water. Maybe.
But if it IS that important, could you maybe try leading off with something that WON'T be guaranteed to be ignored as textbook tinfoil hat rambling? Or has Slashdot really sunk so far as to be a blatantly obvious echo chamber for the paranoids and TRUST NOBODY ZOMG crowd?
In these parts, just before harvest, they fly around with army helicopters and peak in our windows looking for pot plants. The whole freaking house shakes!
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
More government abuse.
There is something absolutely wrong with the people, when they allow the government workers any more entitlements and rights than the citizens have. Since when is it OK for a private individual to stalk another private individual in their own house, setting up bugs and cameras and recording devices, etc?
Realize this: if it's not OK for a private individual, then it's not OK for a government either. Government is just a bunch of individuals that have been given enormous amounts of power over other individuals.
If you don't see a problem with some individuals having huge amounts of power over other individuals, then you have no imagination.
You can't handle the truth.
Maybe there's one looking in your window right now, and if so, there's no law that says it shouldn't.
Good. I just rubbed out a fierce one in front of the window to give them a show.
I'm confused. As far as I am aware, this can be a state-by-state issue. In Maryland, you cannot shoot video where there is "a presumed sense of privacy". I think a camera peering into a person's house would certainly qualify. This issue has come up before in this state, too.
On the other hand, if you want complete privacy, conduct your private acts in a sealed soundproof room. :P
As of late, I have been feeling as though Afghanistan and Iraq where really just proving grounds for our new Drone Overlords. The wars more meant as a way to test using drones against a civilian population without people at home realizing it. I also don't see Drones as the future of combat more then against non-technologically developed countries. Counter Drone tech is already proven in Iran. It will take a bit of time to develop but I think even North Korea is going to be taking down any errant drones. Plus, you can shoot them down if worst comes to to worst because nobody dies.
The only good thing about drones is that we could use them to provide cheap internet service.
In his interview, Moxie suggested building your own flying device to "engage" theirs. As far as aerial engagement goes, I can only interpret that to mean he suggests we take the fight to the air.
Yep, I've been spied on before by these things except in my experience, they resembled a 5 year-old younger brother...
Let's say there's a legal theory that says that anything you do in a public place, defined as anywhere outside closed doors, is something others can record.
The practical outcome of this legal theory is that 1) police can cruise down the streets and look for troublemakers, 2) if someone is really really interested and wants to take the time to do so they can film you, subject to laws against stalking and harassment.
Let's say that technology appears that makes miniature recording robots extremely cheap, reliable and energy efficient.
The practical outcome changes to be that every second spent outside and word you speak is recorded, voice recognised and entered into a database.
If you want the same practical outcome as before, you need to change the legal theory. If you keep the legal theory the same, the practical outcome will be different.
Similar to the right to bear arms. If the legal theory is that you should be able to carry what the government carries, the practical outcome used to be that someone who went postal with a musket might injure or kill one or two people. When the legal theory remains, the practical reality changes. This is solely driven by technology.
Allows law enforcement to record citizens but beats citizens for recording them.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I'm sure people will come up with all of the ways in which the 4th Amendment couldn't possibly apply here (ZOMG, you're out of your house, how could you possibly expect privacy), but really I've always assumed that this is exactly where it should be applied.
This whole "oh well, this technology bypasses the strict wording of that" is just moving the goalposts to sat that if it wasn't specifically prohibited, it must be OK.
No warrant, no probably cause ... no dragnet and broad automated surveillance. The US isn't supposed to allow domestic spying without probable cause and judicial oversight. This record everybody and figure it out later is pretty much the opposite of a free society.
Sadly, terrorism, protecting the children, and copyright all seem to more or less allow one to circumvent these things.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Good Bye!
Cheers!
How far above my property do I own? Because, as of right now, any "Flying machinery" within reach of my 12 gauge is fair game imo. I suspect DIY auto-turrents for under $100 will become more common additions to rooftops as well.
Here is my answer to the inevitable "it's public, and you have no expectation of privacy."
Suppose that the mayor or governor where you live doesn't like you, and arranged so that whenever you left your house, there was a squad car (or foot patrol) waiting on the street, and they followed you where-ever you went. If you go in a store, they're just down the aisle. If you go to church, they sit in the next pew. If you go to a bar, they are there a few feet away. At no time do they invade your house, or touch you, but they are always there, watching and listening.
You have just described the life of a dissident in Eastern Europe, circa 1975-1985. If you think this is OK, or normal, or part of a civilized society, you are crazy.
If you think that it is OK to do all of this with machinery instead of people, you are also crazy. It's no different if it is a goon or a robotic gnat.
I love big brother...
Just replace "frog" with "lobster" - that way it is accurate and everyone's happy.
Is Betteridge's Law of Headlines Correct?
A hummingbird or an insect? A pellet gun and a fly swatter should do just nicely.
No? How about the laws used to restrain peeping toms? The placement of surveillance cameras by unauthorized personelle in places like bathrooms has been upheld as a privacy violation in many nations, and is illegal.
Or the (victorious!) claims against Google's street view "surveillance" of homes that violated their right to privacy by mounting their cameras higher than "normal" pedestrian or vehicle traffic views the street from?
Just because the US FBI likes to place GPS trackers on people without warrants doesn't mean that behaviour has been found legal, either.
Why do so many privacy advocates go around screaming like Chicken Little about the falling sky of government intrusion and oppression, instead of creatively explaining how current law can be used to leash the hounds!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The Paparazzi will save us by abusing this in every way possible. The rich and famous have no choice but to tell the politicians to change the laws.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
All the evidence points to the fact that the majority of people don't care about privacy. They willingly give it up at every opportunity for illusions of security or for bread and faceb...err, circuses.
Yeah anyone remember when they promised they would *never* use drones on Americans?
You remember that? When we all flipped out years ago and they said this technology was only for the battlefield and would *never* be used domestically?
Yeah no one else remembers either. They WERE build to spy upon us and us tin-foil-hat wearers WERE RIGHT when said this would be used to spy on Americans.
Enjoy your spies in the skies.... fucking retards.
Once the total, financial ruin of the US renders it functionally inoperable, and its laws unenforceable.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
They used to do this for quite a few targets of interest -- CPUSA, black militants, labor organizers, KKK members.
Except they went further -- bugs, phone taps, mail interception.
All in the name of freedom.
They can spy on you but you cant take a picture of them without threats and arrest.
Police state sounding to me.
Good luck with that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
soon we will all have a personal flying intelligent companion that acts as like a superpowered smartphone. Such a device will including a vast array of sophisticated sensors, monitors, and jammers that can be utilized for a "stealth" mode.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wow. As an American who's been trying to move to Canada that makes me sad. Is it not a bastion of sanity and forward-thinking? Let's see, no stupid wars, prostitution mostly legal, top freedom in all of Ontario, sane cannabis position, public health care.... sounds like a utopia to me. It's crushing to hear there may be down sides... really? All I've heard about is this French Canada place...
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
This is why meaningful reform never happens.
Get the shit umbrellas Randy.
Who cares about drones? I already get nightly flyby's of the San Diego police helicopter. Worse yet, my house seems to resonate around 45Hz, which means that if the copter is in the air within a few miles of my house, I experience a low rumble. At least if they used drones I could sleep at night.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Use Google to research subjects like "targeted individuals" or "gang stalking" and see how much privacy you really have. This isn't your grandparent's America.
is illegal and has been ruled on already. Same with using various "filters" such as FLIR without a warrant they can't just randomly look in your window.
Well they can and they can always lie about it but technically they are not allowed to. Be it a drone or a helicopter.
Expect the government to pass laws banning these devices... and exempting themselves from any such ban.
Liberty in your lifetime
only a stanford researcher can go down a route where powerful institutions become even more powerful. typical of academic culture. i know better but i write at a lower level because scientific thinking is not working in this country.
Do not use visible lasers; they are too easy to track to the house they shoot from.
For blinding the drones (and not blinding live pilots) an infrared laser could be good.
Taken to higher power, a CO2 laser for a laser engraver can reach couple dozen watts fairly easily. With good focus and dwell time, perhaps could even cause structural failure of some plastic parts on the drone.
Yet another possibility is in the realm of microwaves. A sufficiently focused (perhaps from several houses, networked in an aerial defense grid) microwave beam could confuse the drone's electronics or perhaps even force internal overheat.
A guided model rocket with a suitable payload (or even just as a dumb kinetic projectile) could also do a good job. Such devices can even be unmanned and placed out as "mines", ready to be triggered by an overpassing drone. Suitable sizing of the rocket can ensure that only light, non-fatal damage will be inflicted to large manned aircraft (if hit by a mistake) while the damage to a lightweight drone will be much more extensive.
It should be legal for them to use drones to invade people's privacy.
It should be legal for people to utilize shotguns against drones.
...some drone is watching meeeeee...
No warrant?
Well...
If it is a drone bug or whatever it is probably hovering right outside your window. If it is the place you own or rent....
That's trespassing, and it's illegal.
Also, is the UAV they are using properly licensed? I doubt it. FAA? what about EPA? what sounds or fumes do the devices make? could they disrupt the natural local ecosystem? What frequency(s) are they using? license for that? What if they overhear copyrighted content? Are they paying royalties?
If they are using a laser bounced off a window or the like for audio, that breaks eavesdropping and wiretapping laws.
If they are using a high flying drone or what have you and are not actually on your property, and they watch you through a window, that is still peeping..
That is illegal.
Did they ever see you or your kids in some form of undress?
That is a sex crime.
Contact the FBI, child protective services, and/or the local sheriffs and have them arrested for their perverted crimes.
See, everyone acts like bureaucracy is ALWAYS bad... Once in a while though, you can use them to your (legal argument) advantage.
Maybe we could if someone could provide linkage to it. Don't misunderstand...I'm not for it, but you're claims of these statements ("never" use drones on Americans...and we all flipped out....and "never" be used domestically) seem to be lacking. Maybe that's why "no one else remembers either".
Just another day in Paradise