5 ms·

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to dislike it. Also, they tend to keep these actions secret, which doesn't bode well for government transparency and governme

• daveguy 11y ago
  Agreed. Circling surveillance planes are unsettling no matter if it is routine or not. I believe they should have warrants for these and maybe they do, maybe they don't. There is not enough transparency to know (even just a report of the number of investigations and outstanding warrants in cities or districts would be enough).
  • refurb 11y ago
    Why would they need warrants for watching a person in a public place? You don't have an expectation of privacy in that situation.
    • rmxt 11y ago
      There needs to be further refinement as to what actually constitutes "watching", e.g. with respect to duration, frequency, information monitored, etc. US v. Jones held that installing a GPS device on a car constituted a trespass against one's "personal effects". I think the similar argument here would be that a near constant observation of someone, even while in public, would amount to the same sort of search, even though one has a very low expectation of privacy while in public.
      • rayiner 11y ago
        Jones was based on the classic idea that when the government does what would be a trespass if a private person did it, then a warrant is required. Observing someone in public is not a trespass, no matter how much you do it.
        • rmxt 11y ago
          You are correct to say that you can't commit a trespass by observing someone in public. However, trespassing is not an exclusive test as to whether a search is permissible (though it was the applicable rubric for Jones). The Katz test still must be applied, above and beyond the trespassory test. The concurrences in the Jones opinion state "at the very least, “longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” Swap "GPS monitoring" for infrared, EMF, video, audio tracking, whatever those planes are doing, and I think we are at the same level of "impinge(ment) on expectations of privacy." Is it your opinion that Alito and Sotomayor are barking up the wrong tree? Is this sort of extensive (i.e. multi-modal (visual, EMF, etc.)), and evidently prolonged, monitoring not an impingement on typical expectation of privacy? Sure, this isn't a trespass, but if a private person was doing this to you, wouldn't you want to call the cops? (Oh, wait...)
          • rayiner 11y ago
            My point is that Jones doesn't really help you: the majority opinion focused on the trespass theory, and did not rely on the consequences of longer-term GPS monitoring. In my opinion, the whole "expectation of privacy" thing is reading words into the 4th amendment that aren't there. If you look at the phrasing of the text, which focuses on "searches" and "seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" it's clear that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from doing what would be a common law trespass (to the person, to real property, or to chattels). It's based on property rights, not privacy.
        • sixothree 11y ago
          So it's completely legal to follow someone every place they go? I thought that was very illegal.
          • nommm-nommm 11y ago
            Harassing someone is generally illegal, which can include following them around, usually to intimidate them. If you are following someone in the matter the police would they won't know they are being followed, which is part of what private investigators do. Just don't harass them. If they catch you and tell you to stop and you don't - then you are veering into harassment territory.
    • ethanbond 11y ago
      According to California v Ciraolo, you don't even have that expectation in your own back yard.
• jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Aren't the flight data and plane registrations public information? Wouldn't it be dangerous to fly a plane "in-secret"?
  • sokoloff 11y ago
    Planes can be registered to companies and the companies contracted by the agency/agencies. Those can be dry leases (without crew), allowing the agency to have operational control without ownership of the plane/registration. Of course, all of this supposes that it's important enough to be secret. It actually helps secrecy to fly some of these missions openly, meaning it's harder to find the ones that are clandestine.
• rayiner 11y ago
  Police investigations are generally secret for obvious reasons.
• readme 11y ago
  The problem with making public the methods they use to catch criminals is that criminals would then know how to evade the FBI... You can't investigate a criminal/terrorist and simultaneously tell the public exactly what you're doing, step by step. It's not practical. There are tradeoffs we all have to make. Idealism isn't compatible with the kind of work the fbi does.