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."

Comments

By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[Kenja]

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.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[Synerg1y]

That's the way it's been seeming, however, the 2nd article talks about something that is a little more constant, and that's the "tipping point". That's when the government is forced into reform by enough angry people that the officials cannot be elected again w/o reform. It's a shame it has to come to that though, and part of the issue is the government being so bogged down, the proper people may not even be aware that robots can be used in such a way, or that the local police has flying helicopter drones. There's a huge disconnect in the government when it comes to technology and they are not only trying to catch up in privacy, but in usability too. Just because they have helicopter drones doesn't mean they ever intended to spy on your average citizen, technology came before the laws, make sense? I think it's a bigger statement to the inefficiency of the government, and a lot less to malevolent intent. There's a lot better things to bash the government for, like SOPA.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[betterunixthanunix]

perhaps I'm just a cynical bastard.

Well, the easiest way to show you are not would be to provide us with some sort of evidence that such laws have been passed before. Let me give you a hand with that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/23cnceavesdropping.html?pagewanted=all

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[tomhudson]

Only in the United Stazis of America. Such surveillance, even by your neighbor, is illegal in other countries. For example, here in Kanuckistan, a guy was spying on his soon-to-be-ex. He was sitting in his car across the street from his house. The police asked him what he was doing, and he said "That's my house. I'm waiting to catch my wife cheating on me with my brother."

They told him it was illegal, even if it was his own house, since (1) he wasn't on his own property, and (2) he didn't have the consent of the people he was watching. They gave him a choice - move on or be arrested.

Even private detectives are no longer allowed to do surveillance against individuals on their own property any more in PoutineVille.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[DarkOx]

What is speaks to is that big government is FUNDAMENTALLY abusive. Once you have enough bureaucracy that the elected office don't know what is going on you lose accountability.
People are generally good, when they are accountable, when they think none are looking or nobody will ever know it was them the results are often tragic. You don't powerful mechanism to keep doing right either, no more threat than the disapproving stares of others is usually required. Government needs to be small enough, it terms of both dollars and head count that its always and immediately clear who the responsible parties are whenever a questionable activity happens.

Our modern representative democracy is really just a tyranny of bureaucracy. Virtually unaccountable, and above the law.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[0100010001010011]

People are generally good, when they are accountable, when they think none are looking or nobody will ever know it was them the results are often tragic.

I'm not sure that counts as "good". More like "people just don't want to get caught".

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[hedwards]

That's a false dilemma. The observed effect is primarily caused by people that deliberately vote for politicians that work to undermine the government. You definitely can have big good government, but it requires that the voters reward politicians that act in their interest rather than punishing them.

Also, sunshine laws and bulletproofing the FOIA process would do wonders. For all the whining by the right about the evils of government, I don't see any particularly compelling evidence that corporations or the people in general are any more trust worthy.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[gila_monster]

But perhaps I'm just a cynical bastard.

"The art of accurate observation is often called 'cynicism' by those who do not possess it." -- G B Shaw

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[JesseMcDonald]

It's hard to tell which is crazier these days—the USA or everywhere else. Normally I'd say the USA, but then I hear about someone threatened with arrest for monitoring his own house... What possible expectation of privacy can there be for something which can be seen from a public street, inside someone else's house?

This whole "right to privacy" nonsense has gone too far. The right to privacy legitimately extends only so far as the right to keep things private. Once something becomes public, e.g. plainly visible from a public street, your desire for privacy no longer applies.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[geminidomino]

Let's see...

Soap box.. Stopped being useful when corporations and their bankrolls for bribes became "people," removing any incentive for the so-called "elected officials" to listen to the people on them anyway.

Ballot box.. "First past the post" has been gamed to the point that there is no real choice to choose between anymore.

Jury box... when even SCOTUS is bent to the point that they care less about the Constitution than some angry nerds on Slashdot, it's pretty much lost it's bite, too. Even if this is challenged, I doubt SCOTUS will even agree to hear it...

So yeah, it does kind of look like we're out of boxes.

Re:By "reform" you mean legal for Gov' not for us.

[tomhudson]

Ever hear of stalking? That's basically what this guy was doing - stalking his ex.

Ever been stalked? I have, both in "real life" and online - real life stalkers are SCARY.

A person has the right to go about their lives without other people sticking their noses into it.

Sounds like FUD

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:Sounds like FUD

[Restavon1]

A police officer on patrol cannot film whats happening in your back yard or keep photographic records of your activities.

Re:Sounds like FUD

[SirGarlon]

I believe the approach authoritarians use to justify new surveillance powers is to split hairs about the applicability of existing law. They make sophist arguments such as: wiretapping laws were written for switched-telephone lines and don't apply to packet-switched VoIP; the Fourth Amendment protects citizens' "papers" but electronic data such as e-mail are not "papers." So I think there is reason to be concerned that a court may rule surveillance drones are not constrained by existing statues.

Re:Sounds like FUD

[betterunixthanunix]

And if it's just patrolling, how is that any different than a cop walking his beat?

Do cops frequently flap their wings and fly through the air when they are out on patrol? This is yet another increase in the power of the police, at a time when the United States imprisons more people than any country in the entire world. This is not a question of FUD, it is a matter of whether or not giving the police even more power is a wise thing to do right now; those of us who still desperately cling to the idea that we have rights would say that no, this is not a good time for the police to be getting more power.

Re:Sounds like FUD

[geekmux]

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?

Beat Cop: $25 - $50K to build(training), $50 - $75K per year to operate.

Predator Drone: $15 million to build, $50 - $75K per day to operate.

Dunno about you, but as a taxpayer, I see a "slight" difference here...

Re:Sounds like FUD

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

Surveillance technologies bring two main changes to the table, even when otherwise analogous to some prior method:

1. Economics: There is no legal problem with having cops walking 100% of the legally public beats 100% of the time. Economically, though, there just aren't enough cops to do that. In practice, one of the major protections from the state historically enjoyed by most people is not law; but simple lack of resources. It may be legal to have a cop follow you on a public road, and determine your route; but that cop isn't cheap, so you'll have to attract some suspicion first. Slapping a $100, reusable, magnetic GPS bug on your car, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly cheaper than having a $50,000/yr cop following you. Even if the two are analogous, the level of protection enjoyed in one case is far lower than in the other.

2. Retention: Humans, by necessity, have lousy memories. Our eyes just slide right over mundane happenings and they fall away almost immediately. Storage of electronic surveillance data, on the other hand, is cheap and getting cheaper(and easier to automatically search). Trying to track the routes of all motorists in a city based on data from the beat cops would be essentially impossible. Doing the same from an equivalent number of license-plate cameras? Hard; but tractable.

The crux of the matter is that, as cost decreases and retention increases, 'just patrolling' and 'surveillance directed at an individual' stop being distinct categories: the agents that are 'just patrolling' gather and retain enough data that (proactively or retroactively) turning that patrol into surveillance is essentially just a matter of doing the DB lookup. We haven't reached that point yet; but basically any advance in the cost or capability of automated surveillance technology moves us closer. Patrolling and targeted surveillance aren't fundamentally different, they are different because human agents are really bad at patrolling, and have to be given quite different orders if you want them to get useful data on a specific target. If an agent is good at patrolling, all people that pass within its view are effectively surveilled...

Re:Sounds like FUD

[tverbeek]

You're assuming an executive branch that respects the authority of the judicial branch. Considering that a leading presidential candidate has been talking about having judges arrested for rulings that defy his positions, I wouldn't count on that.

Re:Sounds like FUD

[finnw]

Given the technology invovled my guess it would be functionally about the same as a cop on every street corner 24x7. Now thats what I call a police state.

Police state doesn't mean "lots of cops", it means "unaccountable cops."

Re:Sounds like FUD

[Maximum Prophet]

There is no legal problem with having cops walking 100% of the legally public beats 100% of the time. Economically, though, there just aren't enough cops to do that. In practice, one of the major protections from the state historically enjoyed by most people is not law; but simple lack of resources.

Yes, but many, if not most Americans don't seem to know or care why you don't want 100% police coverage. There are two problems they don't realize. 1) Most people break a law or two every waking hour. 2) With any test, there will be a false positive rate.

What if each and every time you went 56 mph in a 55 you got a ticket? Did you share your wife's prescription allegra because yours ran out? Is it even possible for any citizen to even know every law that might apply to them?

Re:Sounds like FUD

[Amtrak]

The best counter-counter argument here is "But a beat cop costs 52k a year plus 10k in yearly benefits and a life time pension, our drone has a one time cost of 100k plus a 10k operating budget with a 5 year operating life cycle and one beat cop can operate 4 of these drones. That means that if we hire four beat cops for 25 years at cost 4x62k = 248k/yr for 25 years for 248k x 25 = 6.2 Mil assuming no raises and rolled in medical costs. And then half pay for the rest of the life of the police officers under there public pension for at least another 3.1 Mil assuming they all started at 25 retired at 50 and lived to 75. For a grand total of 9.3 Million. Then take the 4 drones, First Year 400k and another 400k every 5 years after. for 400k x 5 = 2 Mil plus 10k x 4 x 25 = 1 Mil operation budget for 25 years. For a total of 3 Mil plus one beat cop at 2.325 Million for a grand total of 5.325 Million total cost for 25 years. So since 9.3 Million > 5.325 Million the drones are cheaper and will save our poor cash strapped city money." And all the brain dead voters out their will go LESS MONEY and WE ARE SAFER! VOTE YES NOW!!! Then again the city will hire the 4 cops anyway, increase there pensions and pay and find out that they grossly underestimated the drone budget and then ask for a bail out or raise taxes but you know that's how the government works. Why do I live here again?

Re:Sounds like FUD

[Pope]

Wait: you're asking if pigs fly?

Re:Sounds like FUD

[geminidomino]

Oh, well in that case, we got there a long time ago.

Frog metaphor

[tverbeek]

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.

Need a warrant

[currently_awake]

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.

didn't notice?

[psin psycle]

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!

Re:didn't notice?

[betterunixthanunix]

Well, now you can rest assured that people who have feral hemp on their land will be arrested and imprisoned without your house shaking in the process! Be glad, citizen, that the loss of your rights no longer has to be shoved in your face!

More gov't abuse

[roman_mir]

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.

Moxie Says Dogfight

[loteck]

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.

Re:Moxie Says Dogfight

[betterunixthanunix]

Congrats, you just advocated the destruction of police property. I suspect that anyone who shoots down or otherwise disables one of these drones will be arrested and imprisoned. Even if you just build a fancy laser system that tracks that drone and tries to overwhelm its camera with laser light, you will probably be convicted of a felony.

Re:The message gets lost in that summary

[SirGarlon]

Actually if you recognize the converging trends of a police-state mentality, a major political party increasingly dominated by religious fundamentalists, the unprecedented technology to enable surveillance, and the recent extra-judicial assassination of U.S citizens on foreign soil, you might start to think "TRUST NOBODY ZOMG" is an appropriate response.

4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

hmmm....

[Charliemopps]

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.

The answer to the no-privacy bigots.

[mbone]

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.

Re:The answer to the no-privacy bigots.

[DarkOx]

It is different, Its worse, eventually you will notice the goon. It might escape your attention for years that a small GPS tracker disguised to look like a fuel filter or something else the ought to be there has been attached to the underside of your car.

Re:The answer to the no-privacy bigots.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Let me tell you about the flashing LED, because it's stupid. Obviously, Hollywood put the blinking on because it makes good TV.

I used to work for a company that made GPS tracking collars for animals. The GPS would be recorded and sent out via VHF to a receiver up to about 20km away. (12 miles)

The VHF transmitter on those collars used a voltage regulator to make sure that the signal is the right strength. Those regulators were $1.60 each. By staggering coincidence, a red LED provided the same voltage regulation for $0.22. It also had the side benefit of letting us know when the VHF section was transmitting because it would light up.

We went with the "let's save $1.38 p.u. + get a troubleshooting light" option, so there are in fact real-life tracking transmitters that have a blinking light.

Re:The answer to the no-privacy bigots.

[_0xd0ad]

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=15170

Re:Lobster metaphor

[finnw]

Just replace "frog" with "lobster" - that way it is accurate and everyone's happy.

The Paparazzi will save us!

[mounthood]

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.

Re:The Paparazzi will save us!

[betterunixthanunix]

The laws will be changed so that only the police are allowed to fly surveillance drones, which will be defined so broadly that every model aircraft enthusiast will be committing a felony.

Re:Don't worry too much...

[akeeneye]

I'm not sure how you meant this, but I can easily imagine that if you gave the average person a few reasons to like such a PFIC, they'd be happy to own one or two of them and have them floating around 24/7 despite the fact that the devices were transmitting a constant stream of information to "the authorities". Maybe the PFIC would cause doors to open for you, or would fly into Starbucks and get your triple-chocolcate-sauce-and-whipped-cream ultra-humungus-ay "cup of coffee" for you so you wouldn't have to roll out of your SUV and waddle in? What's a little Big-Brothering compared to that, the convenience if it, the time-saving!? Your GPS location would be recorded continually and displayed on your very own Facebook timeline, no need for you to lift a finger. Indispensable.