Slashdot Mirror
Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World
An anonymous reader writes: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke on Thursday to faculty and students at the University of Oklahoma City about the privacy perils brought on by modern technology. She warned that the march of technological progress comes with a need to enact privacy protections if we want to avoid living in an "Orwellian world" of constant surveillance. She said, "There are drones flying over the air randomly that are recording everything that's happening on what we consider our private property. That type of technology has to stimulate us to think about what is it that we cherish in privacy and how far we want to protect it and from whom. Because people think that it should be protected just against government intrusion, but I don't like the fact that someone I don't know can pick up, if they're a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property."
The impression I got was that she was more against private ownership of camera-equipped drones. I'm guessing that this argument will be used to put limits on individually owned drones, not on government owned drones.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Isn't she one of the very people that actually helped to build the Orwellian society we already have?
Because people think that it should be protected just against government intrusion, but I don't like the fact that someone I don't know can pick up, if they're a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property
Except private citizens aren't doing this and lack the funds and tools to do it even if they wanted to. Our government, on the other hand, is fist-deep in our assholes at any given moment. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind allowing the government to do as it pleases, while placing further limitations against citizens that aren't even a problem to begin with.
In a perfect world, people would be polite and ASK if they could take photos of you or your property. But in this reality, people can do whatever they want without thinking about anyone else. Empathy is frowned upon. It's mine and I want it NOW NOW NOW. Wah! he's not letting me do whatever I want to! What an asshole!
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
I fail to understand why Sotomayor's opinions are news when they are not fundamentally different from high school book reports written all over the US.
Maybe because she's one of only NINE people in the United States who potentially have the direct power to constrain a surveillance state, since it's clear that our Executive and Legislative branches have "sold out" and have effectively rendered many clauses of the Fourth Amendment meaningless.
Note that the Supreme Court has UNANIMOUSLY overruled the Obama administration's stance at least 13 times in the past two years, in a number of those cases protecting privacy and related freedoms.
So, yeah, this person is one of the few who are close to our only hope in stopping the continuous march toward government surveillance, intrusions into privacy, and complete dismissal of Fourth Amendment protections.
THAT'S why her opinion is news.
Actually, "how high above the dirt you own" is already well defined, both in law, regulation and court cases. What is happening at the ground and a bit above on your property is yours and you can even own copyright on it. Government and individuals are not supposed to snoop on you. Fliers are not supposed to fly below 500' above you in rural areas, higher in urban areas. The result is that if someone is peeping on you in a situation where you can reasonably expect privacy you can sue them and they can also separately be fined and imprisoned by the government. The government itself is supposed to get a warrant to view you.
Just as importantly, the other logical question is how far down below the surface do you own. This is your mineral rights.
Typically in the eastern United States you own all the way down, let's say to the mantle. The exact depth doesn't get too much precedence since deep drilling hasn't been done but fracking may be changing that soon.
Out in the western United States you may well not own below your surface soil, you may well not own your mineral rights, you may well not own your water rights and you may well not even own the rain that falls upon your land. Check your deed and your state laws.
In the fourth dimension of space you own nothing. That is possibly reserved for the alternative owners who may or may not own the land you own in this variation of the multiverse. This will not appear on your deed.
In the fifth dimension (time) your ownership started at some point in the past delineated by your purchase and will end at some point in the future marked by your death or other event. Again, check your deed for the particulars.
To be fair, "private" means corporations, too. Until I see a vote on a lower court decision, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. She's been only one of maybe three Supreme Court justices who seem to believe in privacy. And one of the others seems to think privacy only applies to men and corporations.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Every recording method and device is suspect, not just drones. 1984 has been privatized and the price has come down to the level that a typical home owner can afford it. And, not everyone that can afford it is a peeping-tom.
Canada seems to be ahead of the curve compared to the U.S..
drone-based-businesses-soar-in-canada-as-faa-grounds-us-entrepreneurs:
https://gigaom.com/2014/09/12/...
Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They can only adjudicate cases brought before them.
While true in a strict sense, in a broader sense the Supreme Court has the ability to shape jurisprudence around bigger issues. Take, for example, the recent plethora of federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans in a number of states. The Supreme Court did NOT rule on this issue directly. In fact, the majority rulings last year explicitly avoiding tackling that issue. But, as Scalia noted in dissent at the time, the type of argumentation used in the majority opinion strongly implied that no legal logic would support a gay marriage ban.
So, in the process of adjudicating a case before them, the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for other rulings that were strictly unrelated, but followed from the legal arguments employed.
In this way, Supreme Court justices can shape jurisprudence on cases far beyond their docket. If they begin to make strongly worded objections to Fourth Amendment violations and present new legal justifications for stopping those violations, chances are those sorts of legal arguments will be upheld by lower courts.
And even then, she's one vote out of nine. [snip] If you want something "done", you've got to talk to your congressbum.
True, but 1 out of 9 is somewhat better odds than 1 out 435 in terms of hoping to "get something done," particularly when a number of privacy-related cases have been coming before the Court in recent years.
Everyone keeps talking about drones being an issue.. They are just the side show and distraction. We don't need to regulate drones, we need to regulate big data.
Reality is that the NSA didn't need drones to know everything about you. They could collect all payment information, all internet presence, own your smartphone with spy apps, own your PC, and track your every relationship through meta data from your telecom provider. They know who you talk to and how frequently and in fact and have in fact "stopped revolutions" while they were small when it comes to terrorism. The notion that we live in a free and open society is long gone. People have ended up on watch lists for being aware of TOR, linux and other technologies. I wouldn't surprise me if anyone that uses slashdot as they have had discussions is "watched". That's just your US government. Companies track your spending, and manipulate your environment to try an get you to consume more. There are records on your credit, what services you buy, what you read, where you shop, where you live that are traded and bought and sold as profiles between corporate entities for the sole purpose of their profitability.
Practical surveillance is here. They don't know when you fart and burp yet but with exercise sensors that report to the cloud, and the internet of things they'll know those things soon too. All they need is a big enough data center to consolidate the data build complete profiles on you. If stores (e.g Target) can start sending you diaper coupons because your purchasing habits suggest you might be pregnant believe me they will (in fact they already have).
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
Orwellian society has come to us not because of technology, but because of people. Everyone from the President, NSA, Congress, Courts, Law Enforcement, and General Public is guilty of encouraging or simply allowing the erosion of our liberties. Because we need it to fight the terrorists, druggies, and especially child molesters. Think of the children!
Even if we manage to get government espionage under control, what technology is allowing is for private companies to collect massive amounts of data on us. And every idiot who installs apps on their phone that require "spy on you" permissions is guilty of helping them do so and even financing them. I can't see this stopping until someone makes a sufficiently shocking news story about violations of people's privacy. Maybe someone will make an app that forwards a copy of your browsing history to your mother and significant other, and a message to you saying "this is a small fraction of what every company knows about you".
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways