3 ms·

Oh yeah. This is one of those situations that can go either way depending on what the law and precedent decide. On the one hand: no, it's common sense that you

Oh yeah. This is one of those situations that can go either way depending on what the law and precedent decide. On the one hand: no, it's common sense that you can't just fly a plane over everyone's house and surveil them from above. That smells deeply of privacy violation. On the other hand... Why not? The cops can drive down the street and look at the front of people's houses. The street is a public thoroughfare. The shared airspace is also a public thoroughfare. So the top of the house and exposed land is, maybe, just another side? Maybe if you don't want anybody seeing what you're doing you need a "top fence," i.e. more roofs? And if we declare "No, you really can't just look at people from above," that's gonna have serious consequences for how we make maps in this day and age. So it's a meaty problem and I'm glad the EFF is dug into it.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
This was "just" a violent drug dealer with assault rifles. If the police got a report of people being held in slavery, and observed it from the air, would that change matters?
- btbuildem 2y ago
  I think in your scenario the phrase they'd use is "probable cause", having which allows them to eg. enter the premises vs. have to come back with a warrant.
- Seattle3503 2y ago
  That's always the crux of it isn't it? Safety vs privacy exist in a tradeoff space together, and where you want the government to be is going to depend a lot on your values.
- seventyone 2y ago
  No. The right to privacy should be inviolable. This is no different than the state trying to shove client side CSAM scanning on everyone. "Think of the theoretical children" / "think of the theoretical slaves" doesn't move the needle. I don't know how to square this with satellite imagery, etc. But intentional surveillance from the sky is pretty messed up.
- dgacmu 2y ago
  First, the police can often get a warrant very quickly (like, an hour) in am emergency. Second, there are some exceptions in the case of an immediate threat of harm or destruction of evidence. But if you have time to get and fly the drone, you probably have time to, in parallel to planning the observation -and your likely response- to get a warrant as well.
dgacmu 2y ago
It's really a fascinating question. Is it warrant-requiring surveillance if they capture a photo once per year as part of a survey? What if they park a drone over your house 24x7? Technologies that can see through your walls like thermal imaging already require a warrant: https://www.willettlaw.net/blog/criminal-law-newsletter-4/ https://www.willettlaw.net/blog/criminal-law-newsletter-4/ For maps, though, it's likely we'd take the same exemption we take for a lot of other surveillance data: buy it from commercial entities... Which then raises the question of what a random company can collect from the air, which this ruling does not address.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  IANAL, but were I arguing this case for the side of the property owner that is the precedent I would lean into: "We already have an understanding that you can't just capture whatever electromagnetic radiation happens to flux through someone's house and consider that non-privacy-violating, so why is it okay to intentionally go up in the air and capture the flux reflecting off their private property?"
micromacrofoot 2y ago
> "No, you really can't just look at people from above," that's gonna have serious consequences for how we make maps in this day and age. it would potentially make looking out high windows illegal? I can't imagine much changing in this regard
- petsfed 2y ago
  There's already straightforward legal precedent around privacy re: what my neighbors can see from their property. If police want to set up surveillance from my neighbor's house, they can get permission from them, and/or a court order for it. The question is, can the government put a camera in a place you can't (in principle) walk to, even with permission, specifically to perform surveillance on you. And part of the threat here is that an independent "researcher" could just habitually fly a drone over a bunch of houses, then offer to sell the footage from those flights that they were already doing to the government. And so it doesn't violate any currently existing laws or obvious extensions to those laws, but law enforcement still gets to see into "private" spaces without a warrant. I think the straightforward answer here is that the police cannot use footage taken from places they can't walk to, without a warrant, as evidence, period. Further, warrants for aerial surveillance must be closely tailored such that "incidental" surveillance of things not named in the warrant (e.g., the neighbor's house) can't be used in court either. Want to use google earth images as evidence in court? Fine, but first you use the images as justification for a warrant and send up your own drone.
dylan604 2y ago
This reminds me of the scene in which ever Cheech & Chong movie where their blue tarp "roof" gets a hole in it, and he lays on a ladder to make it look like a swimming pool just to fool the aerial viewers. However, I do appreciate the logic that the judges apparently used. No, this is not the same thing as Google Earth type imagery, as it's not real time capable. Also, I have around my yard a specific type of fencing called privacy fencing. I would absolutely expect a sense of privacy in my yard within that area. Conversely, every single argument presented in the article by the police just reeks of desperation and bottom of the barrel scraping for any justification for their actions. I'm just happy that there's an actual supreme court somewhere within the country that seems to have gotten it right.
snarg 2y ago
It's not about what is or isn't a public thoroughfare. It's about what is or isn't "a reasonable expectation of privacy." It just turns out that, because people are expected to walk/drive on streets, and people are also generally expected to have functional eyes, your front yard doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  It's both. The problem is that the cost to just be passing by in the air has come way down, and that creates a new question of privacy that wasn't practical to worry about before. (If it weren't being addressed by the cops specifically right now vis-a-vis warrentless searching, it'd have to be addressed by society eventually as we get into questions like "Who's eyes are on the camera feeds from all those Amazon delivery drones?").
dihydro 2y ago
I think erring on the side of needing warrants for law enforcement can help with some of the incidental vs targeted surveillance debate. Law enforcement driving past while on regular patrol and noticing something vs spending time and resources to launch a drone, fly a plane, or stake out a property for surveillance has a distinction that feels neat enough for a court to rule on.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

This was "just" a violent drug dealer with assault rifles. If the police got a report of people being held in slavery, and observed it from the air, would that change matters?

btbuildem 2y ago
I think in your scenario the phrase they'd use is "probable cause", having which allows them to eg. enter the premises vs. have to come back with a warrant.
Seattle3503 2y ago
That's always the crux of it isn't it? Safety vs privacy exist in a tradeoff space together, and where you want the government to be is going to depend a lot on your values.
seventyone 2y ago
No. The right to privacy should be inviolable. This is no different than the state trying to shove client side CSAM scanning on everyone. "Think of the theoretical children" / "think of the theoretical slaves" doesn't move the needle. I don't know how to square this with satellite imagery, etc. But intentional surveillance from the sky is pretty messed up.
dgacmu 2y ago
First, the police can often get a warrant very quickly (like, an hour) in am emergency. Second, there are some exceptions in the case of an immediate threat of harm or destruction of evidence. But if you have time to get and fly the drone, you probably have time to, in parallel to planning the observation -and your likely response- to get a warrant as well.

dgacmu 2y ago

It's really a fascinating question. Is it warrant-requiring surveillance if they capture a photo once per year as part of a survey? What if they park a drone over your house 24x7? Technologies that can see through your walls like thermal imaging already require a warrant: https://www.willettlaw.net/blog/criminal-law-newsletter-4/ https://www.willettlaw.net/blog/criminal-law-newsletter-4/ For maps, though, it's likely we'd take the same exemption we take for a lot of other surveillance data: buy it from commercial entities... Which then raises the question of what a random company can collect from the air, which this ruling does not address.

shadowgovt 2y ago
IANAL, but were I arguing this case for the side of the property owner that is the precedent I would lean into: "We already have an understanding that you can't just capture whatever electromagnetic radiation happens to flux through someone's house and consider that non-privacy-violating, so why is it okay to intentionally go up in the air and capture the flux reflecting off their private property?"

micromacrofoot 2y ago

> "No, you really can't just look at people from above," that's gonna have serious consequences for how we make maps in this day and age. it would potentially make looking out high windows illegal? I can't imagine much changing in this regard

petsfed 2y ago
There's already straightforward legal precedent around privacy re: what my neighbors can see from their property. If police want to set up surveillance from my neighbor's house, they can get permission from them, and/or a court order for it. The question is, can the government put a camera in a place you can't (in principle) walk to, even with permission, specifically to perform surveillance on you. And part of the threat here is that an independent "researcher" could just habitually fly a drone over a bunch of houses, then offer to sell the footage from those flights that they were already doing to the government. And so it doesn't violate any currently existing laws or obvious extensions to those laws, but law enforcement still gets to see into "private" spaces without a warrant. I think the straightforward answer here is that the police cannot use footage taken from places they can't walk to, without a warrant, as evidence, period. Further, warrants for aerial surveillance must be closely tailored such that "incidental" surveillance of things not named in the warrant (e.g., the neighbor's house) can't be used in court either. Want to use google earth images as evidence in court? Fine, but first you use the images as justification for a warrant and send up your own drone.

dylan604 2y ago

This reminds me of the scene in which ever Cheech & Chong movie where their blue tarp "roof" gets a hole in it, and he lays on a ladder to make it look like a swimming pool just to fool the aerial viewers. However, I do appreciate the logic that the judges apparently used. No, this is not the same thing as Google Earth type imagery, as it's not real time capable. Also, I have around my yard a specific type of fencing called privacy fencing. I would absolutely expect a sense of privacy in my yard within that area. Conversely, every single argument presented in the article by the police just reeks of desperation and bottom of the barrel scraping for any justification for their actions. I'm just happy that there's an actual supreme court somewhere within the country that seems to have gotten it right.

snarg 2y ago

It's not about what is or isn't a public thoroughfare. It's about what is or isn't "a reasonable expectation of privacy." It just turns out that, because people are expected to walk/drive on streets, and people are also generally expected to have functional eyes, your front yard doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

shadowgovt 2y ago
It's both. The problem is that the cost to just be passing by in the air has come way down, and that creates a new question of privacy that wasn't practical to worry about before. (If it weren't being addressed by the cops specifically right now vis-a-vis warrentless searching, it'd have to be addressed by society eventually as we get into questions like "Who's eyes are on the camera feeds from all those Amazon delivery drones?").

dihydro 2y ago

I think erring on the side of needing warrants for law enforcement can help with some of the incidental vs targeted surveillance debate. Law enforcement driving past while on regular patrol and noticing something vs spending time and resources to launch a drone, fly a plane, or stake out a property for surveillance has a distinction that feels neat enough for a court to rule on.