Slashdot Mirror
Drones, Dogs and the Future of Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "Stanford's Ryan Calo has previously told us that 'that there is very little in American privacy law that would prohibit drone surveillance within our borders.' But will UAVs not only be legally permitted to monitor us in public, but also be used to 'peer' into homes with high-tech thermal and chemical sensors and alert police to the presence of illicit substances or other suspicious activity? Calo writes in Wired about a pending Supreme Court case, Florida v. Jardines, which will determine 'whether the police need a warrant before a dog can sniff your house' like they already do to luggage at airports. According to Calo, if the Court approves of these searches, it's a small leap to extend that same logic to the use of drones, allowing them 'to roam a neighborhood in search of invisible infractions such as indoor marijuana.' He concludes: 'The wrong decision in Jardines makes this and similar surveillance scenarios uncomfortably plausible.'"
Cops cannot use thermal imaging to see inside without a warrant. What you saw on Weeds was just a TV show.
The walls of your house create an expectation of privacy, and that privacy is protected by the constitution.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I am sooooo looking forward to my new house with the "potting" room where I can have grow lamps. Getting no-knock raids in the middle of the night where the narcs find absolutely bupkis is funny enough, but it can't be that hard to come up with extracts that drive drug-sniffing dogs wild. Just a squirt here and there around the neighborhood ...
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Kyllo v. United States ruled that thermal imaging into a home without a warrant is unconstitutional. However, that decision was pre-9/11.
Your neighbors gone wild! Awesome bedroom footage from above!
"Oops I'm sorry officer but it keeps getting getting flying cock roaches and your surveillance quad copter mixed up and burning a hole through it."
As far as "seeing" in your house the police using IR cameras to spy on you will just motivate everyone that much more to go green faster and heavily insulate their homes making those cameras pretty much useless for spying. Personally I'd rather have them us IR for patrolling so maybe we can finally get rid of the rediculous amount of outdoor lighting we have everywhere in the city.
Eliminating the incentive for predatory government agencies to spy on us may be more effective, and wouldn't have the same chilling effect on emerging technologies.
If these drones ar eused for surveillance (sp? FF Spell ehck doesn't work on Linux) there is a precedent:
Kyllo v. United States
Soon, every aspiring American entrepreneur running a server farm can get busted for growing pot, and every Canadian's with hot tubs and pools can get charged massive fees.
the problem is most police forces can't put people in their cars and on the streets let alone scrape together the money to purchase, train users and follow-up on all that a drone will pull in. Military aid is out due to posse comitats [sp] and there is a difference between flying a drone around wide open Iraq and downtown Chicago.
Guess its time to practice my slingshot skills!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
Until private citizens start building their own and start observing what the elite are doing. Suddenly, there will be laws against it.
Just raise taxes to pay for it. That's how things like this work. Its 'for your protection' remember.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
For now.
All that needs to happen is another case going before a differently populated supreme court and they can change the ruling. Then refuse to hear anymore cases on the issue.
Besides, all they have to do is pull out the 'terrorism' card and our rights are negated.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In all seriousness, though, they might just plant a baggy on your property. Good luck.
That's why I'd be doing my tomcat imitation and spraying the neighborhood. Including the Mayor's house.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
All those shootgun's need a permit...
(oh slashdot, you're kiddin', my captcha is "caliber"...?)
I saw what looked like a Secret Service agent step out of one - he was wearing a $3000 suit. Then he started talking about trees being the right height here.
So Street View is a problem and an invasion of privacy. But flying over head taking pictures might not be? All that has to happen is Google puts their logo on the side of a drone and Microsoft will get their politicians to make using drones illegal. Problem solved.
Privacy has been gradually disappearing since civilization began. It will continue, obviously, as technology makes surveillance ubiquitous. The issue is not the privacy of the surveyed but the privacy of the surveyor. If anyone can see who is seeing them, then privacy becomes bilateral and, perhaps, mute. Of course, it will not happen suddenly. However, old age, death, and new life have a way of introducing acceptance of change.
On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.
Police forces are getting more militarized by the day. Drones are just the next step. Financing is through the Feds, or by confiscation.
Of course, confiscation works better in a reasonably working economy. These days, auctioning off a siezed 'drug house' is almost useless. Nobody has the money to buy it, unless they can turn it into a strip mall.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If only we had some MAGICAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT whereby the people, if the were not OK with something, could have laws passed to prevent it! Too bad we just have to stand around and wring our hands helplessly while shit happens!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Instead of sinking billions more into the failed war on drugs so that they can have even more toys, we just end the failed attempt at prohibition, stop looking for a criminal solution, and start treating the problem like the medical / social issue it is.
That's right. Legalize everything. Spend a couple billion to set up treatment centers for addiction, allow pharmacies to distribute safe products appropriately, and take the money out of the hands of criminal organizations and law enforcement entirely.
Before you start with the "think of the children" arguments. Realize that it's easier for your kids to get illegal drugs now than it is for them to get beer or cigarettes. That's how effective the war on drugs has been. And I come from a country bumpkin community. Everything I could have wanted was readily available in my middle school. I didn't even have to get to high school before I knew who to chat up for stuff like that had I been interested. Your kids aren't going to suddenly become junkies because they have access to drugs. They already have that access if they want it. The problem is already there. And for the most part they're not interested unless they have other problems in their lives.
The current solution is grossly ineffective and extraordinarily expensive at the same time. It's time to stop beating a dead horse and move on to a solution that's been proven to work.
I can see a whole new field for creative entrepreneurs: systems to detect, catch, interfere, control, intercept, or trap these obnoxious devices. Millions might be out there waiting for you!
The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But our rights are mostly lost, because the sheep have already been trained to beleive that the government GRANTS rights, when in reality it is supposed to RESPECT and ABIDE by them.
Nothing has intruded into your house.
If you don't want to advertise your activities - stop radiating photons in infra-red, visible, etc. spectrums.
You're bluffing. In the UK people speak English.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."