Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Warrants For Drone Surveillance

Posted by Soulskill on from the quis-custodiet-ipsos-drones? dept.

schwit1 sends word that California governor Jerry Brown has vetoed legislation that would have required warrants for surveillance using unmanned drones. In his veto message (PDF), Brown said, "This bill prohibits law enforcement from using a drone without obtaining a search warrant, except in limited circumstances. There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

The article notes that 10 other states already require a warrant for routine surveillance with a drone (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). Further, Brown's claims about the bill's exceptions are overstated — according to Slate, "California's drone bill is not draconian. It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

26 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. something to remember next time you vote by Cardoor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ask yourself:

    which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?

    answer: both. the fix is in.

    happy voting! now move along.

    1. Re:something to remember next time you vote by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not that surprising, given that the executive branch has determined it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:something to remember next time you vote by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      no doubt they showed him some incriminating drone footage of himself.

      Though think about it, if you're in public, you're already being recorded. They should need a warrant to drone over your back yard though.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:something to remember next time you vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I don't get is why people consider this "getting sold out." Didn't about 99-100% of voters support these people in the last few dozen elections? Aren't we about to unanimously re-elect these parties in about a month? This is Democracy in action: we are saying we want what's happening.

      If you're speaking with one voice ("fuck me, fuck me hard!!") in the voting booth and another voice in public ("hey, stop fucking me"), then maybe you are the problem.

      If you vote Democrat, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

      If you vote Republican, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

      Those two parties have already stated this part of their platforms. It's only when you vote American that you're opposing their policies and saying you would prefer constitutionally limited powers, due process, and civil rights. If that's what you want, then vote for someone else, or run if no one else is running.

  2. This is the wrong attitude by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.

    Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:This is the wrong attitude by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was about to express similar sentiment. If it's only doing what the law already requires and nothing more, then it's not really a new law, it's a piece of paper to sign and look like you are doing something to protect privacy without actually doing anything.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:This is the wrong attitude by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

      He is the head of the executive branch of government of his state, which means that ultimately he's in charge of the State's Attorneys General office, and since officers in California are deputized at a state level too (for arrests as criminals change jurisdictions) he has a stake there too.

      The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State. The Legislative branch's job is to represent the citizenry/populace. I hate to break it to you, but this is actually working in the way it's meant to. If the Legislature wants this law to pass then they need to come up with a supermajority to override the veto.

      Or, let the situation reach a prosecution, and then appeal the grounds of evidence from the drones and wait for it to go through the State courts, possibly ending up in Federal courts.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Idiot by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

    Lamest excuse ever. If it didn't "go beyond" what is required by the US and state Constitutions, there would be no need for the law!

    Tyrant.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  5. Oh yes, we were by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Because he couldn't do anything. That was glorious. Moonbeam is still loved, so he can still do things, or get away with not doing things that we really want because he doesn't have to give a fuck about his approval rating. The idiots will approve of him (if on no other basis, as the lesser of evils) regardless.

    Note, I am about as liberal as they come. But I voted for Arnold, and I'd do it again. The only part of it I'm sorry about is that it cost the people money. We'd have wound up with Moonbeam again regardless.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Oh yes, we were by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.

      The Democratic party is centrist and pro-big-business, especially in California. California is one of the least friendly states to small business. Not only is the state a bastard (and I'm not talking about environmental regulations here, I am generally in favor of those except when they are used to do stupidity, e.g. preventing a CostCo in Ukiah due to "concerns" about "habitat" when the land in question is a big fucking waste of concrete that harbors nothing but some plucky weeds-in-cracks and which is both an eyesore and an ecological failure) but there's over fifty counties, and they all do business differently. The real leftists have all moved on to other parties.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Oh yes, we were by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You have a choice: here they are." See? You have freedom so stop claiming otherwise!

      Would you like a left boot or a right boot on your throat?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Oh yes, we were by rockout · · Score: 2

      oh right, here's the classic backtrack - you slam "liberal Democrats" as "authoritarian", implying that the opposite of "liberal Democrats" wouldn't be so authoritarian, and then once someone calls you out, "oh I never said that, did I? that's all in YOUR head, you need to calm down!" After all, if you were caught taking a stand for the side you prefer, you've now backed yourself into a corner, and that's so inconvenient when you're trying to prove that you're right.

      Don't be an infant. Everyone knows exactly what you meant, and if you really didn't mean that, try harder to not post as if you did.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    4. Re:Oh yes, we were by rockout · · Score: 2

      It doesn't, but he wasn't "criticizing Democrats" in a vacuum - he framed it in a way that it was clear he was saying "Democrats are more authoritarian than Republicans." Which is bullshit, because they're both terrible at the moment.

      Even worse, the same guy most likely posted this AC comment in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he's got support for his read-between-the-lines partisan dog-whistle message. Coward, indeed.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  6. P.S. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I posted this one to point out how little things change. I guess I should have posted at least one more versions lyrics

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Here's the bill: public notice key by Sez+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative
    Link to the text of the bill, since TFA is limited.

    Probably the sticking point was:

    A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.

    There's also some reasonable limitations on data captured by drones (can't be kept long) and a requirement to log who requests drone missions. If only there was some federal body that could come up with some reasonable standard for all states...

    1. Re:Here's the bill: public notice key by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      The last word is probably the most damning.

      There's a very popular school of thought in security that keeping capabilities secret is a means to reduce risk*. Such a vague requirement to disclose capabilities is open to lawsuits arguing that the disclosure must include things like maximum range, speed, radar size, and so forth, effectively providing an instruction manual for criminals looking to evade such a drone, who now know that their escape plan must include driving so fast for so far.

      * No, it's not security through obscurity. Security through obscurity is where the security of the system is compromised by knowledge, whereas keeping the capabilities of a secure system secret only increases the expense (and therefore lowers the chance) of an attack against an otherwise-secure system.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Here's the bill: public notice key by bigpat · · Score: 2

      I think that is an important point. Unmanned drones certainly can give additional capabilities at potentially lower costs. But the privacy consideration should be in what the police are allowed to do without a warrant regardless of whether it is a manned helicopter or an unmanned one or a person up on a hill or a tower that has a good vantage point. Restrictions such as not peering in through windows into a house or using different wavelengths of light to determine heat signatures in a house or using a laser/radar to ease-drop on the conversations of occupants of a house or building without a warrant or a bona fide emergency situation are all appropriate restrictions that should equally apply to all technology rather than single out any one particular technology. This could be a case where the more specific a law protecting privacy is, then the more loop holes for using other technology in the same way are created.

  8. News Flash! Jerry Brown is still alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    News Flash! Californians keep electing him.
    News Flash! Democracy is the best system for crushing freedom.

  9. Re:Gobernator by Jawnn · · Score: 2

    I guess they would be better off with the "Sperminator".

    Because this single issue is the only thing that matters, right? No, wait. Abortion is the only thing that matters. No, I mean gay marriage is the only thing that matters.
    Single-issue voters deserve all the bad things that happen to them because of their narrow-minded, short-sighted choices.

  10. How much money does Brown get from police unions? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love this part, too:

    "It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

    First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs. Second, this let's the use the old "inspection" ruse to use the drone as long as they can get some inspector to tag along.

    I would recommend you all remember this when it's time to vote. Make stuff like this a big deal. Call them to the carpet at town hall meetings. Etc.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  11. What would be wrong with more requirements? by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    The constitution is there to limit government. There is nothing wrong with limiting government more than the bare minimum limits defined by the constitution. In fact, I would say there is a good case today for rewriting the constitution using far more strict, unambiguous modern language with far more limitations than it currently has.

  12. Re:How much money does Brown get from police union by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    The thing is, search and rescue efforts, wildfire inspection, all make sense for this sort of exception; but you are right a blanket "emergency situation" may as well be no requirement at all because anything can be viewed as an emergency and anyone claiming emergency is almost always given the benefit of the doubt for anything short of an outright hoax.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  13. Re:How much money does Brown get from police union by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    I love this part, too:

    "It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

    First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs.

    Reminds me of the old "Everything we do is by definition an emergency, so we "own" your radio systems" argument used by a lot of Whackers when Amateur radio started bing used more in emergency communications. They'd try to defend ordering Pizza as an emergency.

    Didn't work then, and declaring everything as an emergency doesn't work now either.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  14. Brown is a right winger by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like Clinton, he gets a lot of hate from the right despite pushing a right wing agenda:

    1. College costs have doubled despite state budget moving back to black

      Killed single payer health care, which passed three times under Arnie
      Opposed a serious increase in the minimum wage
      Opposes marijuana legalization

    And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who lives there could come up with more stuff.

  15. Re:Thanks for the threat by Cardoor · · Score: 2

    i have no idea what you're talking about. there was no threat, implied or explicit (threat? really? where did that come from??) you seriously misunderstood the experiment i referenced.

    the point of referencing the experiment was that it's a good demonstration of what can happen when a system is fundamentally flawed in such a way that flaws are re-indoctrinated on new entrants. simply changing new entrants will do little or nothing on the course of the system, unless ALL the participants are replaced simultaneously. Your 'boot party' only works if you booted EVERY member of congress at the same time and put new ones in. otherwise, they just learn the rules of the existing structure once in.

    this has zero to do with donations, polls, canvassing, or anonymity.