>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant. I realise that, but you said "I hope th

>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant. I realise that, but you said "I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge" so I inferred that you thought the judgement was incorrect. >"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right? I'm not sure if you're trolling here. The slash meant "or" in this case, which should be been patently obvious. >Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye. Of course, and it's not illegal AFAIK. >Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars". The article doesn't mention "automated license plate readers".