[aklug] Re: Legal protection from drone surveillance

From: adam bultman <adamb@glaven.org>
Date: Mon Jul 02 2012 - 12:14:28 AKDT

Dang, how'r the Duke boys gonna run their shine now?

I bet you they're as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full'a
rockin' chairs!

On 07/02/2012 12:02 PM, Jim MacDonald wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
Adam
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Jul 2 12:14:35 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 02 2012 - 12:14:35 AKDT