Privacy Is Bi-Partisan!

[Synthaholic]

Everyone should pester their Congresscritter about this subject.


Bipartisan Bill Introduced in Congress Would Prohibit Warrantless Drone Surveillance


Legislation sponsored by two members of the House of Representatives has been introduced to regulate how the government uses drones. The legislation would require law enforcement to get a search warrant or some other kind of judicial approval for surveillance before using drones to investigate criminal wrongdoing. It would, however, allow drone use for fire and rescue missions, monitoring droughts, assessing flood damage or chasing a fleeing criminal.


The bill was introduced on February 13 by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Demcorat from California, and Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas. The introduction was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Unmanned drones must not become a perpetual presence in our lives, hovering over us, following us and recording our every move,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU. ”Strict rules should govern the use of drones by the government. By requiring that law enforcement secure judicial approval before using drones, this legislation achieves the right balance for the use of these eyes in the sky.”





​

The ACLU noted the bill would also require all government agencies “register all drones” and the “results of criminal investigation involving the technology” would have to be “reported to Congress.” It also would reportedly prohibit law enforcement from arming drones.
A previous version of the legislation reintroduced by Poe sought to limit how drones could be used in federal criminal investigations. It sought to prohibit the use of “drone evidence” in “administrative hearings.” And it sought to prohibit the use of private surveillance by private persons:

No Federal agency may authorize the domestic use, including granting a permit to use, of an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)), to permit any private person to conduct surveillance on any other private person without the consent of that other private person or the owner of any real property on which that other private person is present. [emphasis added]





​

Lofgren did not post anything on her website yet on cosponsoring the legislation, but Poe has put up what he said in the House yesterday.

According to the FAA, by 2015, it will allow the use of drones nationwide, and by 2030, 30,000 drones will be cruising American skies – looking, observing, filming, and hovering over America. They will come whether we like it or not. We will not know where they are or what they’re looking at or what their purpose is, whether it’s permitted or not permitted, whether it’s lawful or unlawful, and we really won’t know who is flying those drones…
…It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.





​

A bill like this is remarkable as it calls for Congress to be “proactive” in protecting Americans’ privacy. Congress is exceptionally poor at being “reactive” when Americans’ rights are actually being violated by government agencies. As Poe said, it aims to set limits so nobody would be using drones to spy on anyone without the legal authority to engage in such activities.




*snip*

Screen shot from PBS’s Nova episode, “Rise of the Drones”

 

[S.J.]

Something needs to be done about the war on privacy, and quick.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.

It also doesn’t take a Constitutional law professor to know that there is no expectation of privacy with regard to aerial law enforcement surveillance, where a warrant is not required to for a police fly-over, drone or manned aircraft. See: Florida v. Riley (1989).

 

[S.J.]

…It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.

It also doesn’t take a Constitutional law professor to know that there is no expectation of privacy with regard to aerial law enforcement surveillance, where a warrant is not required to for a police fly-over, drone or manned aircraft. See: Florida v. Riley (1989).

That's why we need legislation. Government has a long track record of abusing power.

 

[whitehall]

We don't need legislation. We need the federal government to respect the Bill of Rights for a change. Drone surveillance is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If your not doing anything wrong you don't don't need to worry about Drones.

Go back and watch TV.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is this really that different from a cop on a stakeout, binoculars in hand, and a tuna on rye in his lap?

 

[S.J.]

We don't need legislation. We need the federal government to respect the Bill of Rights for a change. Drone surveillance is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Yes, but we know that's not gonna happen.

 

[Synthaholic]

Is this really that different from a cop on a stakeout, binoculars in hand, and a tuna on rye in his lap?

Yes.


Domestic drones and their unique dangers

Dismissive claims that drones do nothing more than helicopters and satellites already do are wildly misinformed



The use of drones by domestic US law enforcement agencies is growing rapidly, both in terms of numbers and types of usage. As a result, civil liberties and privacy groups led by the ACLU - while accepting that domestic drones are inevitable - have been devoting increasing efforts to publicizing their unique dangers and agitating for statutory limits. These efforts are being impeded by those who mock the idea that domestic drones pose unique dangers (often the same people who mock concern over their usage on foreign soil). This dismissive posture is grounded not only in soft authoritarianism (a religious-type faith in the Goodness of US political leaders and state power generally) but also ignorance over current drone capabilities, the ways drones are now being developed and marketed for domestic use, and the activities of the increasingly powerful domestic drone lobby. So it's quite worthwhile to lay out the key under-discussed facts shaping this issue.


I'm going to focus here most on domestic surveillance drones, but I want to say a few words about weaponized drones. The belief that weaponized drones won't be used on US soil is patently irrational. Of course they will be. It's not just likely but inevitable. Police departments are already speaking openly about how their drones "could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun." The drone industry has already developed and is now aggressively marketing precisely such weaponized drones for domestic law enforcement use. It likely won't be in the form that has received the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at Muslims (although US law enforcement agencies already possess Predator drones and have used them over US soil for surveillance).


Instead, as I detailed in a 2012 examination of the drone industry's own promotional materials and reports to their shareholders, domestic weaponized drones will be much smaller and cheaper, as well as more agile - but just as lethal. The nation's leading manufacturer of small "unmanned aircraft systems" (UAS), used both for surveillance and attack purposes, is AeroVironment, Inc. (AV). Its 2011 Annual Report filed with the SEC repeatedly emphasizes that its business strategy depends upon expanding its market from foreign wars to domestic usage including law enforcement:

AV's annual report added: "Initial likely non-military users of small UAS include public safety organizations such as law enforcement agencies. . . ." These domestic marketing efforts are intensifying with the perception that US spending on foreign wars will decrease. As a February, 2013 CBS News report noted, focusing on AV's surveillance drones:

"Now, drones are headed off the battlefield. They're already coming your way.
"AeroVironment, the California company that sells the military something like 85 percent of its fleet, is marketing them now to public safety agencies."




​

Like many drone manufacturers, AV is now focused on drone products - such as the "Qube" - that are so small that they can be "transported in the trunk of a police vehicle or carried in a backpack" and assembled and deployed within a matter of minutes. One news report AV touts is headlined "Drone technology could be coming to a Police Department near you", which focuses on the Qube.


But another article prominently touted on AV's website describes the tiny UAS product dubbed the "Switchblade", which, says the article, is "the leading edge of what is likely to be the broader, even wholesale, weaponization of unmanned systems." The article creepily hails the Switchblade drone as "the ultimate assassin bug". That's because, as I wrote back in 2011, "it is controlled by the operator at the scene, and it worms its way around buildings and into small areas, sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator, who can then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target (hence the name) by exploding in his face." AV's website right now proudly touts a February, 2013 Defense News article describing how much the US Army loves the "Switchblade" and how it is preparing to purchase more. Time Magazine heralded this tiny drone weapon as "one of the best inventions of 2012", gushing: "the Switchblade drone can be carried into battle in a backpack. It's a kamikaze: the person controlling it uses a real-time video feed from the drone to crash it into a precise target - say, a sniper. Its tiny warhead detonates on impact."

What possible reason could someone identify as to why these small, portable weaponized UAS products will not imminently be used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the US? They're designed to protect their users in dangerous situations and to enable a target to be more easily killed. Police agencies and the increasingly powerful drone industry will tout their utility in capturing and killing dangerous criminals and their ability to keep officers safe, and media reports will do the same. The handful of genuinely positive uses from drones will be endlessly touted to distract attention away from the dangers they pose.


One has to be incredibly naïve to think that these "assassin bugs" and other lethal drone products will not be widely used on US soil by an already para-militarized domestic police force. As [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610392116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364562948&sr=8-1&keywords=radley+balko"]Radley Balko's forthcoming book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" details[/ame], the primary trend in US law enforcement is what its title describes as "The Militarization of America's Police Forces". The [ame="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/29/terrorism_39/"]history of domestic law enforcement particularly after 9/11[/ame] has been the importation of military techniques and weapons into domestic policing. It would be shocking if these weapons were not imminently used by domestic law enforcement agencies.



*snip*

 

[Mr. H.]

Very informative. What about warrants?

I think statutory limits will win out.

 

[Synthaholic]

Very informative. What about warrants?

I think statutory limits will win out.

Your local Sheriff would not need a warrant to fly a drone around your neighborhood, doing routine surveillance. And if he can zoom in on you while you are minding your own business in your own backyard, which is surrounded by privacy fencing, that is an invasion of privacy.

 

[Synthaholic]

We Already Have Police Helicopters, So What’s the Big Deal Over Drones?

By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 11:26am


As drone regulation legislation works its way through Congress and the 30 (so far) state legislatures where it has been introduced, one question that we hear a lot these days is, “we’ve had police helicopters for a long time, what’s so different about drones?”


For one thing, police helicopters do raise privacy issues. Because of the expense of using manned police aircraft, privacy invasions have not risen to the level that legislators have felt compelled to address them, but incidents do happen. In 2005, for example, a police helicopter supposedly monitoring a street protest in New York City instead trained its infrared camera for a prolonged period on a couple making love on a pitch-black rooftop patio. Any police helicopter that followed a citizen around town for no reason, or hovered over the backyard of innocent homeowners whose daughter was sunbathing with her friends, would probably draw complaints. With drones, scenarios like those are bound to happen much more frequently. And that’s because there are some critical distinctions between manned and unmanned aircraft.

1. Drones erase “natural limits” on aerial surveillance
Manned helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are expensive to acquire, staff, and maintain. A police helicopter costs from $500,000 to $3 million to acquire, and $200-$400 an hour to fly. Manned aircraft are large, complex machines requiring expert ground crews, multiple shifts of pilots and co-pilots, and (unlike drones which can often be hand-launched) runways or helipads. Such expenses mean there are inevitably going to be far fewer of them—which in turn means the police are likely to use them only where they are most needed.


With drones, on the other hand, it’s easy to foresee a day when even a professional police drone could be acquired for less than a hundred dollars, including maintenance costs. And if technology and laws eventually reach the point where drones can fly autonomously, they would become even cheaper because police departments wouldn’t even have to pay staff to control or monitor them.

2. Drones make new forms of privacy invasion possible
In addition, there are some kinds of privacy invasion that are only possible with drones. For example, micro-drones maneuvering into intrusive places; even the smallest manned helicopter can’t fly into a garage or hover unseen outside a third-story bedroom window. Or (as I’ve written about before), the fact that drones can be silent; the loud noise a helicopter makes serves as a crude kind of “notice” that one may be under surveillance from the air. Silent or high-flying drones that can’t be heard provide no such notice.

3. Drones’ capabilities are likely to expand even further in the future
The fact that drones are so inexpensive will have another consequence: because so many drones will be out there, and so many people innovating with them, it’s very likely that the technology will develop new capabilities that have never existed for police helicopters. Many of these may be things that haven’t even occurred to anyone yet, but to pick just one possibility, it could involve the ability for swarms of drones to act in increasingly sophisticated, coordinated fashion to carry out surveillance that a single manned aircraft could never perform. And drones will permit continuous, 24/7 surveillance in a way that we haven’t seen with manned aircraft. First, because there will be many more of them, but also because manned craft must return to the ground regularly for shift changes and refueling; drone technology, on the other hand, is moving toward allowing unmanned craft to stay aloft for ever-longer periods of time, for example through solar power, ground-based laser recharging, or the use of blimps.

 

[Mr. H.]

Capabilities and what will be allowed may end up being vastly different.

 

[Publius1787]

Everyone should pester their Congresscritter about this subject.


Bipartisan Bill Introduced in Congress Would Prohibit Warrantless Drone Surveillance


Legislation sponsored by two members of the House of Representatives has been introduced to regulate how the government uses drones. The legislation would require law enforcement to get a search warrant or some other kind of judicial approval for surveillance before using drones to investigate criminal wrongdoing. It would, however, allow drone use for fire and rescue missions, monitoring droughts, assessing flood damage or chasing a fleeing criminal.


The bill was introduced on February 13 by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Demcorat from California, and Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas. The introduction was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Unmanned drones must not become a perpetual presence in our lives, hovering over us, following us and recording our every move,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU. ”Strict rules should govern the use of drones by the government. By requiring that law enforcement secure judicial approval before using drones, this legislation achieves the right balance for the use of these eyes in the sky.”





​

The ACLU noted the bill would also require all government agencies “register all drones” and the “results of criminal investigation involving the technology” would have to be “reported to Congress.” It also would reportedly prohibit law enforcement from arming drones.
A previous version of the legislation reintroduced by Poe sought to limit how drones could be used in federal criminal investigations. It sought to prohibit the use of “drone evidence” in “administrative hearings.” And it sought to prohibit the use of private surveillance by private persons:

No Federal agency may authorize the domestic use, including granting a permit to use, of an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)), to permit any private person to conduct surveillance on any other private person without the consent of that other private person or the owner of any real property on which that other private person is present. [emphasis added]





​

Lofgren did not post anything on her website yet on cosponsoring the legislation, but Poe has put up what he said in the House yesterday.

According to the FAA, by 2015, it will allow the use of drones nationwide, and by 2030, 30,000 drones will be cruising American skies – looking, observing, filming, and hovering over America. They will come whether we like it or not. We will not know where they are or what they’re looking at or what their purpose is, whether it’s permitted or not permitted, whether it’s lawful or unlawful, and we really won’t know who is flying those drones…
…It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.





​

A bill like this is remarkable as it calls for Congress to be “proactive” in protecting Americans’ privacy. Congress is exceptionally poor at being “reactive” when Americans’ rights are actually being violated by government agencies. As Poe said, it aims to set limits so nobody would be using drones to spy on anyone without the legal authority to engage in such activities.




*snip*

Screen shot from PBS’s Nova episode, “Rise of the Drones”

I thought rule of law, due process, and democratic process was bipartisan too, but I was wrong. http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...acare-in-the-courts-round-ii.html#post7033270 Indeed, all that junk only matters until one party or the other want it as a beating stick for the other party.

 

[hjmick]

You know, I started a thread or two about the use of drones domestically last year and no one could be bothered to care. You'll forgive me if I don't get all worked up over your sudden concern for privacy...

 

[Synthaholic]

Everyone should pester their Congresscritter about this subject.


Bipartisan Bill Introduced in Congress Would Prohibit Warrantless Drone Surveillance


Legislation sponsored by two members of the House of Representatives has been introduced to regulate how the government uses drones. The legislation would require law enforcement to get a search warrant or some other kind of judicial approval for surveillance before using drones to investigate criminal wrongdoing. It would, however, allow drone use for fire and rescue missions, monitoring droughts, assessing flood damage or chasing a fleeing criminal.


The bill was introduced on February 13 by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Demcorat from California, and Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas. The introduction was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Unmanned drones must not become a perpetual presence in our lives, hovering over us, following us and recording our every move,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU. ”Strict rules should govern the use of drones by the government. By requiring that law enforcement secure judicial approval before using drones, this legislation achieves the right balance for the use of these eyes in the sky.”





​

The ACLU noted the bill would also require all government agencies “register all drones” and the “results of criminal investigation involving the technology” would have to be “reported to Congress.” It also would reportedly prohibit law enforcement from arming drones.
A previous version of the legislation reintroduced by Poe sought to limit how drones could be used in federal criminal investigations. It sought to prohibit the use of “drone evidence” in “administrative hearings.” And it sought to prohibit the use of private surveillance by private persons:

No Federal agency may authorize the domestic use, including granting a permit to use, of an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)), to permit any private person to conduct surveillance on any other private person without the consent of that other private person or the owner of any real property on which that other private person is present. [emphasis added]





​

Lofgren did not post anything on her website yet on cosponsoring the legislation, but Poe has put up what he said in the House yesterday.

According to the FAA, by 2015, it will allow the use of drones nationwide, and by 2030, 30,000 drones will be cruising American skies – looking, observing, filming, and hovering over America. They will come whether we like it or not. We will not know where they are or what they’re looking at or what their purpose is, whether it’s permitted or not permitted, whether it’s lawful or unlawful, and we really won’t know who is flying those drones…
…It doesn’t take a constitutional law professor to see why legislation is needed to protect the rights of the American people. The right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. Any form of snooping or spying, surveillance or eavesdropping goes against the rights that are outlined in the Constitution.





​

A bill like this is remarkable as it calls for Congress to be “proactive” in protecting Americans’ privacy. Congress is exceptionally poor at being “reactive” when Americans’ rights are actually being violated by government agencies. As Poe said, it aims to set limits so nobody would be using drones to spy on anyone without the legal authority to engage in such activities.




*snip*

Screen shot from PBS’s Nova episode, “Rise of the Drones”

I thought rule of law, due process, and democratic process was bipartisan too, but I was wrong. http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...acare-in-the-courts-round-ii.html#post7033270 Indeed, all that junk only matters until one party or the other want it as a beating stick for the other party.

Oh, stop your crying. Man up and pay your bills.

 

[Synthaholic]

You know, I started a thread or two about the use of drones domestically last year and no one could be bothered to care. You'll forgive me if I don't get all worked up over your sudden concern for privacy...

Please forgive me for missing your 2012 thread.

 

[Mr. H.]

Capable machines.
But I think the machinations of civility will ultimately trump those capabilities.

 

[mamooth]

What's the legal difference between drones and satellites, helicopters or aircraft?

For example, if I look at various mapping programs, I see pictures of my house taken by a low-flying aircraft. All the reasoning against drone surveillance would also seem to apply to surveillance by satellites, helicopters and aircraft. So I wonder why the outrage is directed solely at drones. That is, the topic is a specific technology, instead of the general issue of surveillance.

 

[S.J.]

What's the legal difference between drones and satellites, helicopters or aircraft?

For example, if I look at various mapping programs, I see pictures of my house taken by a low-flying aircraft. All the reasoning against drone surveillance would also seem to apply to surveillance by satellites, helicopters and aircraft. So I wonder why the outrage is directed solely at drones. That is, the topic is a specific technology, instead of the general issue of surveillance.

Don't know about a legal difference but a difference, nonetheless.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4]US Air Force Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicle - YouTube[/ame]