[aklug] Re: Legal protection from drone surveillance

From: Jim MacDonald <jim@macdonald.org>
Date: Mon Jul 02 2012 - 12:02:31 AKDT

I think the important thing to remember here is that , depending on make and=
 model of UAV, the aircraft in question are not limited to visible spectrums=
. They a potentially capable of capturing any part of the Em spectrum includ=
ing IR, RADAR, radio (UHF, VHF, microwave,etc) there are even sensors that c=
ould potentially receive and record the EM data being sent to your LCD scree=
n if they were sensitive enough. I can see no good reason for a civilian pol=
ice force to have such ability. FBI, DHS maybe, giving the right circumstanc=
es and rigorous and active management by the judicial system but not Sheriff=
 Joe-bob. =20

On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:18, Erinn Looney-Triggs <erinn.looneytriggs@gmail.com>=
 wrote:

> On 07/02/2012 11:12 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 08:29 AM, Mike Tibor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Christopher Howard wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>> Mike
>>=20
>> For the sake of discussion, here are some more questions: (I'm not
>> claiming to be the expert here, or to have all the answers.)
>>=20
>> 1. Can law enforcement legally use remote surveillance to monitor you
>> activities inside a private structure, without a warrant? E.g., are
>> they allowed to point a powerful telescope through the window of your
>> home (without getting a warrant) and record everything you've done in
>> your living room, and would that count as legally admissible evidence?
>> (If there was a bill preventing that, I'd be glad to sign on to it.)
> Not really no, homes have special protections including the area around
> the home. However, there are some odd exemptions around remote listening
> devices, I don't remember the details just a vague recollection of some
> exemptions.
>=20
>>=20
>> 2. Does "expectation of privacy" include just the inside of your
>> shuttered home, or is it any place that is not "public"? E.g., suppose
>> you are sitting in your backyard, behind a grove of trees, where
>> normally no one would be able to see you from the highway.
>=20
> You probably don't have that in that location. However, there are
> interesting cases around places like say a tent, or a mobile home, are
> these homes? If so do they fall under the special protections granted to
> homes? This area seems to be kind of murky in case law.
>=20
>>=20
>> 3. Outside of drone technology, is there any technology that can
>> easily track your activity (with photography) everywhere you go? If
>> you were walking the main streets of San Diego, you might expect there
>> to be a hidden camera at every corner (maybe there should be a law
>> against that as well...?), but what about when you are walking the
>> suburbs, or hiking through the woods? What else can they do in those
>> cases, except assign a police unit to you? (Which is relatively
>> speaking rather expensive.)
>=20
> I can't really speak to this as I don't know much about it.
>=20
>>=20
>> H.R. 5925 doesn't mention anything at all about "expectation" of
>> privacy, it simply states that the Feds must get a warrant to use a
>> drone to "gather [any] evidence or other information pertaining to
>> criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a regulation".
>>=20
>> I'm not saying other methods of surveillance aren't a concern, but
>> this is the only surveillance-related bill I see in the House at the
>> moment.
>>=20
>=20
> I am not a lawyer, I just used to work in law enforcement, that doesn't
> make me an expert by any means, but the above are my recollections.
>=20
> -Erinn
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
> -- File: signature.asc
> -- Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>=20
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP8fPyAAoJENetaK3v/E7PHv0H/jELOtt4p1kouTdJfjrtdToC
> X5i1rysE55mhcZvNJaOGaB3YchkGS7aqF2b+//WYf6xBNo0/OjB3xs8sWe+QX/kd
> VYVoqSdZdi9bjyObh5rVerlkWe5PIw8A6Jh3AZKqXYLXWT1fSWkOrW8J2P5vwL5e
> dtFaxajUCoxIcoVsy0WyJ+7wiRZuLbf7AlVAN/BdrHaF3kdDu0+9+MdVW991AkwI
> n5bZ1sp0w7PgePT5amGIqlxqQJdxkguU/WzPQ7TbG21T7IMe5lc7CTr66/RQZoVg
> LRcDRx53jOGHM4pulc7xd7BcLzhoMZPclEn0sE9/e00IJkJN/R3oQfZW3KZzPIc=3D
> =3DDrkJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>=20
>=20
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>=20
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Jul 2 12:11:48 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 02 2012 - 12:11:48 AKDT