OUTRAGED Midwest Farmers Protest EPA Spy Planes Over Iowa Ranches

[Ravi]

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

The fact that you cannot understand why farmers, or anyone, would have problems with this tells just how far along you are in your brainwashing. You're on your ass, gaining speed as you move on down that slippery slope. Many of us just don't want to go along for that ride.

County and city officials drive by my business all the time and look. I'm not peeing my pants over it. Now if they were coming in without my permission, I'd have a big problem with it....though of course, I believe the fire inspector might be allowed to do that as a condition of my permit to operate.

Businesses aren't individual people, no matter how much you pretend they are.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Did they just say the Federal government OWNS all the airspace?

Yes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Did they just say the Federal government OWNS all the airspace?

No, nobody said that. Not even close.

 

[Ravi]

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

LOL, I don't think you are any of those things but I fail to see how 4th amendment rights are being violated.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I can imagine the Feds invoking RICO against farmers for owning livestock.

 

[gallantwarrior]

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

The fact that you cannot understand why farmers, or anyone, would have problems with this tells just how far along you are in your brainwashing. You're on your ass, gaining speed as you move on down that slippery slope. Many of us just don't want to go along for that ride.

County and city officials drive by my business all the time and look. I'm not peeing my pants over it. Now if they were coming in without my permission, I'd have a big problem with it....though of course, I believe the fire inspector might be allowed to do that as a condition of my permit to operate.

Businesses aren't individual people, no matter how much you pretend they are.

Farming is what my family does for food. That is NOT the business of government. What I eat and feed my family is NOT their business, despite liberal belief to the contrary. Unless I engage in interstate commerce, the Feds have NOTHING to say about what I grow, how I grow it, and what I do with it. Since the EPA is a federal agency, they most decidedly DO NOT have a reason to overfly my farmstead.

 

[occupied]

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really, then what the fuck is the point of the drones?

Oh yeah they're searching.......

You think if a cop had a "hover board" like in "Back To The Future II" they could just search your property?

What is the difference if you're one inch off the ground or 1,000 feet???

There is none if it is done from the public space.

Define public space???

If I could float around at 5 feet off the ground am I in "public space?"

The view is the point here, and I doubt a drone is hovering 5, 15, or 25 feet over your deck.

You don't define public space, the law does, and the government as We the People's rep makes that decision, not you.

 

[Ravi]

The fact that you cannot understand why farmers, or anyone, would have problems with this tells just how far along you are in your brainwashing. You're on your ass, gaining speed as you move on down that slippery slope. Many of us just don't want to go along for that ride.

County and city officials drive by my business all the time and look. I'm not peeing my pants over it. Now if they were coming in without my permission, I'd have a big problem with it....though of course, I believe the fire inspector might be allowed to do that as a condition of my permit to operate.

Businesses aren't individual people, no matter how much you pretend they are.

Farming is what my family does for food. That is NOT the business of government. What I eat and feed my family is NOT their business, despite liberal belief to the contrary. Unless I engage in interstate commerce, the Feds have NOTHING to say about what I grow, how I grow it, and what I do with it. Since the EPA is a federal agency, they most decidedly DO NOT have a reason to overfly my farmstead.

If you are just farming to feed your family, you don't fall under these EPA rules. You might fall under some local rules if you are polluting your neighbor's drinking water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

It's an argument, not dicta, much less law.

 

[Si modo]

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

Damn, that was a pretty fucking stupid response to what I posted.

 

[Ravi]

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

Damn, that was a pretty fucking stupid response to what I posted.

Not really. I believe that the Bill of Rights covers individuals, not businesses.

 

[Si modo]

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

LOL, I don't think you are any of those things but I fail to see how 4th amendment rights are being violated.

I'm sorry you don't.

 

[Ravi]

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

LOL, I don't think you are any of those things but I fail to see how 4th amendment rights are being violated.

I'm sorry you don't.

You'd have to convince me that the bill of rights is meant to cover business entities.

 

[The T]

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

Damn, that was a pretty fucking stupid response to what I posted.

That one too had me scratching my head...'A right they never had...?'

 

[The T]

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

And what RIGHT would that be DERP? Elaborate?

 

[occupied]

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

Damn, that was a pretty fucking stupid response to what I posted.

And you are still missing the point that outrage over this is pointless, It's clear you do not see polluters in the same criminal class as smugglers and producers of drugs, that's your problem, the government views it all as destructive antisocial criminal behavior as well they should.

 

[gallantwarrior]

County and city officials drive by my business all the time and look. I'm not peeing my pants over it. Now if they were coming in without my permission, I'd have a big problem with it....though of course, I believe the fire inspector might be allowed to do that as a condition of my permit to operate.

Businesses aren't individual people, no matter how much you pretend they are.

Farming is what my family does for food. That is NOT the business of government. What I eat and feed my family is NOT their business, despite liberal belief to the contrary. Unless I engage in interstate commerce, the Feds have NOTHING to say about what I grow, how I grow it, and what I do with it. Since the EPA is a federal agency, they most decidedly DO NOT have a reason to overfly my farmstead.

If you are just farming to feed your family, you don't fall under these EPA rules. You might fall under some local rules if you are polluting your neighbor's drinking water.

The USDA is the more commonly referenced agency for agricultural activities. They are even more draconian than the EPA as far as their intrusion into agricultural production at all levels. At least I haven't read anything indicating they are using drones to monitor activities. They have other, even more sinister, methods they are desperately trying to implement. And if you follow the money for either the EPA or the USDA intrusions, you will find that your government has been bought and paid for by agricultural interests who have only their bottom line as a driving factor. They don't give a shit whether the swill they market is nutritionally sound, whether it is safe, or whether it is toxic in some way...just as long as they make their bucks. And our pols are mostly their shills. Growing your own is one of the better ways to ensure your food supply is sound. If you cannot grow everything, as few of us can, partner with your neighbors and barter/trade.

 

[The T]

It's not an erosion, it's not a right they ever had.

Damn, that was a pretty fucking stupid response to what I posted.

And you are still missing the point that outrage over this is pointless, It's clear you do not see polluters in the same criminal class as smugglers and producers of drugs, that's your problem, the government views it all as destructive antisocial criminal behavior as well they should.

Polluters because the EPA says so? Really?

 

[Intense]

not a matter of spying.

Look, if there is an existing fine for 'X'... and you can either trespass on private property to determine if 'X' is going on, or fly over private property to determine if 'X' is going on, I don't personally see a problem with it (the fly over). If 'X' is indeed going on, then they are breaking the rules and should be fined. If 'X' is not going on, then they won't be fined.

Essentially, it's people breaking the law that are going to be upset that they are getting caught breaking the law. Too bad. Don't break the law.

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

You are all missing the picture. We are way past that. One Word.... Satelite...... well two words.... Satellite Surveillance. Think Google Maps. Think Internet. Privacy is a Luxury now a days, not a Right.