On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Christopher Howard wrote:
> Hopefully this qualifies as on-topic, but I want to point out a bill
> that recently was introduced in the House, called the Preserving
> Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012:
>
> https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h5925/show
>
> Basically, it is a bill that requires the Feds to get a warrant before
> they are allowed to spy on citizens with unmanned drones. The basic
> idea is to pre-emptively prevent the U.S. from turning into a police
> state, where the government can spy on anyone they wish using
> low-flying drones.
>
> That may sound rather sci-fi, but it really isn't: the technology has
> received heavy application in the military, as well as some scientific
> and other civilian uses. It is a fairly easy step to bring them into
> law enforcement use.
>
> So, if that sounds like a concern to you, then you might consider
> e-mailing Don Young through his Web form
> (<http://donyoung.house.gov/Contact/>). There is also a Senate version
> of the bill, I believe.
> (<http://gcn.com/articles/2012/06/14/congress-rand-paul-warrants-for-domestic-drone-surveillance.aspx>)
>
What most people forget when this topic comes up is that airborne drones
are really only effective when the surveillance target is out in the open.
Believe it or not, when you're out in the open you have no expectation of
privacy, and the police need no warrant to photograph you or record your
conversations. Police routinely plant cameras/microphones in open areas
to gather evidence during an investigation, so I'm not sure why mounting
them on a small airborne platform changes anything.
Violation of your privacy can only occur when you're in a place where you
have a reasonable expectation of privacy--in your home for instance. An
airborne drone isn't going to make it easier for police to watch you or
monitor your conversations when you're inside your house. Technology for
surveilling a target inside a structure from the outside has existed for
many years now. That kind of technology should be of far more concern then
the simple mounting of a camera on a little RC helicopter, and I'm not
sure why it isn't.
Don't get me wrong--I think most tools used by government agencies that
have the potential for abuse are virtually guaranteed to be abused by
them, given the opportunity. I'm just having trouble seeing the basis for
the outrage on this one.
Mike
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Jul 2 08:30:05 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 02 2012 - 08:30:05 AKDT