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.'"

12 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. It's already been ruled on. by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:It's already been ruled on. by BlindRobin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution but a long held extended interpretation of the fourth amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. Laws regarding privacy are, at this point in time, undergoing a great deal of challenge and re-interpretation in state and federal courts. This is not a done deal, the law never is. The Patriot Act and similar less publicized legislation have already eroded this presumptive right and state legislatures around the country are pushing bills targeting privacy issues in the pursuit of various ideological agenda with increasing frequency.

    2. Re:It's already been ruled on. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That won't stop them from trying. This Supreme Court has flagrantly ignored the actual text of the bill of rights in the past, I'll be surprised if they have any trouble ignoring implicitly granted rights as well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:It's already been ruled on. by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative members of the court both then and now, both sided with the majority in Kyllo v. US, which held that thermal imaging of a home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. Scalia even wrote the opinion.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

    4. Re:It's already been ruled on. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like, "The same group of rights-hating cops who fly helicopters over my house looking for marijuana now want to fly quieter, cheaper drones." Anything that makes violations of our civil rights -- a category which should include the war on drugs as a whole -- easier, cheaper, or in any way more efficient is a bad thing. Constitutional protections have done little to protect people from being charged with drug law violations over feral hemp growing on their land:

      http://www.myabc50.com/news/local/story/Attorney-argues-Lisbon-mans-pot-crop-was-actually/O0ZqB3dQhEOVy4uSFyh9dQ.cspx

      Or worse still, being killed for no reason at all:

      http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:It's already been ruled on. by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not so much in the US. Expect to be deported shortly.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:It's already been ruled on. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Complete horseshit.

      Not at all. Your own personal desire for privacy on your property does not make law, regardless of how outraged you may be at the situation. I'll simply point to a few cases such as CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO which held it legal for police to fly an airplane over someone's yard to get a look above the privacy fences, and the similar case FLORIDA v. RILEY which held that a helicopter fly-over that allowed observation through the openings in a green house did not require a warrant. Perhaps the most instructive case would be US v. DUNN, which sets extremely narrow definition of "curtilage" of a home - the area where you may have an expectation of privacy. This is a US Supreme Court decision, so note that it applies to your state, too. In Dunn, even a perimeter fence and another interior fence were crossed by DEA agents, and the SCOTUS held that this intrusion was perfectly reasonable, and the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas.

      They can knock on the door if they have official business but they may not walk up to my door in order to conduct any kind of search or surveillance without cause

      That is entirely the opposite of the findings of the SCOTUS. The 8th Circuit court stated it this way:

      Whether a police officer has commenced a “search” turns not on his subjective intent to conduct a search and seizure, but rather whether he has in fact invaded an area which the defendant harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy (US v REED).

      Your porch or approach to the front door is pretty much NEVER considered a private area, and it doesn't matter at all WHY an officer is there. He can be there for any reason or none at all. So your legal theory is not one that is accepted by the courts.

      They have NO presumed right or "invitation" to come onto my property at any time, regardless of the presence of any drive or walkway, or even "open house" signs on the front lawn. NONE. It simply doesn't exist.

      Sorry, but the courts don't care. Police and LEO are allowed to enter these areas at any time and for any purpose, the entire point being that you do not have any "expectation of privacy" in those areas. Your theory here that they require some "presumed right" to enter those areas is simply not recognized by any court or law enforcement anywhere in the entire country. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - it seems you're going to be really upset about it.

      At least you found out now, instead of when you tried to actually assert this idea in court or with the police.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  2. False positives by overshoot · · Score: 4, Funny

    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, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  3. Re:Privacy Anachronism by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.

    I find this statement to be pretty interesting. Google certainly does monitor all the email you send, for advertising purposes (but will fork it over when law enforcement presents a court order). Facebook monitors even more details of most people's lives, and is not going to take a stand against government requests for information. Big brother is watching everyone; the government just has not figured out how best to use the flood of information to its advantage (and the friendly relationship between the government and corporations makes it hard to distinguish between corporate invasions of privacy and government invasions).

    Even totalitarian states do not take action on every single piece of information that they are aware of. The point of governments collecting information on citizens is not to target everyone, it is to maintain government power by spotting potential dissidents before their movements grow to "dangerous" sizes. The struggle for privacy is a struggle for power; privacy rights are fundamental to individual empowerment and democracy.

    So is big brother going to come after you because of your secret affair? Of course not. Is big brother going to release information about your secret affair when you start talking about changing the social order, reducing political corruption, or working for the benefit of the common people? It is not unthinkable that such a thing could happen.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:Privacy Anachronism by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.

    You don't need to be personally paranoid to realize that the worry is not necessarily constant active surveillance by 'big brother', rather that by making virtually every facet of your life recordable, the authorities will now have the ultimate version of Cardinal Richelieu's proverbial "six lines written by the most honorable of men". I don't think anyone is watching me nor would they have any reason to, but I can honestly say the way things are going would make me far less likely to, for example, become publicly active in a controversial political cause.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  5. How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Privacy Anachronism by GmExtremacy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The issue is not the privacy of the surveyed

    I think that's a big problem.

    On the other hand, if you feel that 'big brother' is silently watching your every move, then you must have a huge ego.

    More like the government could be watching your every move. Or someone else's moves. I don't only care about myself, you know.

    I care about privacy not only because I and many others enjoy it, but because it helps keep corrupt governments from suddenly creating ridiculous laws to criminalize previously innocent citizens. If they could watch everyone, then it gives them the ability to easily see whether someone is doing something that they recently declared illegal and enables them to silence dissenters far more easily.

    But of course, my country's government would never do that! Out of all the corrupt governments throughout history, mine is special and cannot be corrupted!