3 ms·

While this might feel counterintuitive, it's supported by Supreme Court precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.or

• pdonis 9y ago
  The "bright line" here is "at the entrance to the home". But there is no indication in the article that the plane in question is seeing things inside people's homes, or imaging heat given off from inside the home (which was the issue in the Supreme Court case). It's just (the article speculates) observing activites outside people's homes, in public spaces. So I don't think the precedent you cite is relevant.
  • CamperBob2 9y ago
    Point being, if the aircraft is looking at private residences using sensors that reveal things that couldn't ordinarily be perceived by humans, its activities may be legally iffy. But that's what parallel construction is for, I guess...