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.
Also, as far as I am aware, you are not allowed to have security cameras on your property that film parts of other's properties. Those laws should suffice, or at least be amended to include "roaming" cameras.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
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!")
She's probably just fine with the *state* peeping into your (not her) business. That's the very definition of a self labeled "progressive". Guns, drones, private (no tax man involved) monetary interactions between people, healthcare, retirement, etc.
Actually, Sotomayor is a bit of an outlier on the Supreme Court and has been highlighted for laying the groundwork to reinstate stronger Fourth Amendment protections -- particularly against the government intrusions -- especially in her ruling in United States v. Jones . (For details on her privacy rulings before joining the Court, you can see EPIC's summary here.)
Note that in TFA she was warning about "Orwellian" surveillance, which specifically tends to refer to a world where the government is spying on you, not just private citizens. The quotation highlighted in TFS seems to focus on private citizen regulations, but she has also demonstrated more concern about many government invasions of privacy than most other Supreme Court members, including those who are definitely NOT ''progressives."
The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that a landowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[4] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.
At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
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.
Zero. Since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, you don't "own" a goddamn thing. You have property only at the pleasure of the government, and as long as there isn't a corporation who can make better use of your property. And by "better use", I mean, will pay more in taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They can only adjudicate cases brought before them. They can't make policy outside of those cases, so in fact, she is not in a "position to do more than talk" until a case comes before her challenging surveillance. And even then, she's one vote out of nine.
A Supreme Court justice can do three things in their official capacity: talk, write and vote, and the talking they do is mostly asking questions. They can't initiate any action at all.
If you want something "done", you've got to talk to your congressbum.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Old person explains something new to THEM or something THEIR peers are ignorant of but every younger person is aware of.... not news.
1984 wasn't about technology, it was about authoritarianism taken to the next level using primarily negative feedback. A realistic response (because history shows negative feedback is totally dominant) to the highly praised imaginative Brave New World which used positive feedback to control populations. It's a rebuttal based on historic human behavior. Both books need to be studied because techniques from both camps are used to control populations. Soft sciences make it more effective and technology is merely a tool.
When somebody has an epiphany; that is great, humor them for catching up. Then try to guide them to the next step and let them have another one. Technology isn't 1984; we have always been there as humans. Few societies are organized so well using the latest social science as 1984 did. It just allows things to go further and the technology allows for more micromanagement-- which is the holy grail for authoritarian systems... the end game solution. Oh, 1948 was the date of the book; 1984 is meaningless, just a future date taken from 1948 but close enough for people at the time to THINK about it.
The micromanagement technology is arguably is required for an end game solution like 1984 because it's been tried thru out human history but eventually it fails because they can't control all the people all the time-- 1984 is the end game solution, where they finally can. Nothing is different except that it's permanent an unable to be stopped. No revolutions. Likely, there are no other nations to invade or conquer either (likely just a smokescreen.)
Terrorists like the founders of the USA would be caught early. No revolutions. Violent human struggles on the group level would end. ORDER is one of the top priorities of authoritarians. can't allow unrest. can't even allow protests -- you need a permit or it's disorderly --- we accept that despite it being in the 1st next to speech; we don't quite accept speech zones or permits for free speech... but we are not that far from it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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