3 ms·

I like the eff's work in general, I don't think they're right about govt. use of drones based on their helicopter comparison. Simply, if you're going to make a

I like the eff's work in general, I don't think they're right about govt. use of drones based on their helicopter comparison. Simply, if you're going to make a counter argument, then it should be more persuasive (it wasn't to me at least) > But, as we pointed out in our brief, drones are fundamentally different from helicopters or airplanes. Drones can silently and unobtrusively gather an immense amount of data at only a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. In other words, the government can buy thousands of drones for the price of one helicopter and its hired pilot. Drones are also smaller and easier to operate. They can fly at much lower altitudes, and they can get into spaces—such as under eaves or between buildings—that planes and helicopters can never enter. And the noise created by manned airplanes and helicopters functions as notice to those who are being watched—it’s unlikely you’ll miss a helicopter circling overhead when you’re sunbathing in your yard, but you may not notice a drone. Just bc something is easier and cheaper to use, it doesn't pteclude its use by govt. officials in public spaces. They could have hired a helicopter instead, and then the eff wouldn't have an argument. The motivations behind the action needs to be addressed, not the tools used to carry out the actions. However, without the privacy angle this wouldn't be an eff case. Were the drone oeprators even allowed to use the airspace at the altitude they did? Any illegally acquired evidence can't be used by them. I have no specifics of this situation so I can't say.

hn_acker 3y ago
The EFF followed a Baltimore case of government surveillance by airplane conducted in 2020 [1] and ruled on by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 [2]. According to the Fourth Circuit, the information that plane surveillance can gather about individuals is, with respect to privacy, comparable to cell site location information (CLSI), at issue in Carpenter v. United States (2018) [3]. Helicopters offer at least the surveillance capabilities that planes do. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/officials-baltimore-and-st-louis-put-brakes-persistent-surveillance-systems-spy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/officials-baltimore-an... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/victory-fourth-circuit-rules-baltimores-warrantless-aerial-surveillance-program https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/victory-fourth-circuit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
Caligatio 3y ago
I would argue ease-of-use and lower costs should be factored into all sorts of privacy decisions. The easiest thing to point at is public records: at some point one's phone number and address were distributed in a paper book to a geographically related area. Now there are countless websites that aggregate your phone numbers and addresses over years, publish that information online, and make it easily searchable. These are not the same impact to privacy yet they use largely the same legal justification. Taken to the extreme, someone should not be able to record every currently-legal moment of your life using any means using the same legal argument as hiring a PI and/or a helicopter.

hn_acker 3y ago

The EFF followed a Baltimore case of government surveillance by airplane conducted in 2020 [1] and ruled on by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 [2]. According to the Fourth Circuit, the information that plane surveillance can gather about individuals is, with respect to privacy, comparable to cell site location information (CLSI), at issue in Carpenter v. United States (2018) [3]. Helicopters offer at least the surveillance capabilities that planes do. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/officials-baltimore-and-st-louis-put-brakes-persistent-surveillance-systems-spy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/officials-baltimore-an... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/victory-fourth-circuit-rules-baltimores-warrantless-aerial-surveillance-program https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/victory-fourth-circuit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

Caligatio 3y ago

I would argue ease-of-use and lower costs should be factored into all sorts of privacy decisions. The easiest thing to point at is public records: at some point one's phone number and address were distributed in a paper book to a geographically related area. Now there are countless websites that aggregate your phone numbers and addresses over years, publish that information online, and make it easily searchable. These are not the same impact to privacy yet they use largely the same legal justification. Taken to the extreme, someone should not be able to record every currently-legal moment of your life using any means using the same legal argument as hiring a PI and/or a helicopter.