4 ms·

Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Does it really matter if it’s a human tracking d

by infecto 3mo ago

Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Does it really matter if it’s a human tracking down a suspect or a drone. If you have any case law that shows general cameras break the 4th I would love to read.

ceejayoz 3mo ago
> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy.
- infecto 3mo ago
  Yup I did and it was not clear. I think those two examples are worthy of a discussion on scope creep but not clear policy violations atm. The intent is to be used on active calls which I believe is a great idea. A clear violation would be the drones actively patrolling and identify suspicious behavior. That’s bad and a clear violation of the policy. Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn more about it. This is one of those areas that can be a slippery slope. Look at the UK and the terrible state it’s in. On the flip side I would hope that so long as the guardrails are in place that first response drones can be good for all parties.
  - ceejayoz 3mo ago
    > Please let us know how this violates the 4th. It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
    - infecto 3mo ago
      Maybe similar trajectory but fundamentally Chatrie is about compelling stored data from a third party. I don’t believe there is any meaningful overlap between that and direct visual observation from police. Folks should argue it in court if so but I don’t see the link to 4th violations.
      - ceejayoz 3mo ago
        Chatrie has sections like this: > Second, Location History allows police to reconstruct “retrospective[ly],” and with no real effort, people’s comings and goings in any area, enabling “tireless and absolute surveillance” of any number of people in any number of places. A certain level of drone surveillance would seem likely to rise to this level of intrusion, and I think ALPR cameras already do.
        infecto 3mo ago
        Agree I wish the article focused more on the storage and availability of the data instead of the narrative they wrote. It’s in there but not the focus which imo is the issue. I think it’s great to have the drones as active response but like ALPR, it’s ripe for abuse after the fact. These systems can have great value but are ripe for abuse, I hope organizations catchup to build the proper guardrails.
nozzlegear 3mo ago
> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. I'm the person who posted the article lol. The article lists several cases where the drones were used to investigate random people – not active calls. They deployed drones to spy on some guy listening to music on his roof, and used drones to follow two "suspicious individuals" who were just driving to a basketball court. Another instance had drones hovering around outside an apartment building's windows while police were apparently inside. The department's drone use policy says that footage should only be recorded when the drone is at the scene to minimize the exposure of people unrelated to the investigation, but the investigators found that the drones are recording constantly, from takeoff to landing, and capturing everyone and their dog in between. > Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Put me on the Supreme Court and I'd be happy to do that for you. Until then, there are more qualified people to do it and the rest of us will just know it when we see it. :) edit: removed the part where I said u/infecto didn't read the article – it's clear we both read it and came away with different conclusions.
- infecto 3mo ago
  [dead]

by infecto 3mo ago

ceejayoz 3mo ago

> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy.

infecto 3mo ago
Yup I did and it was not clear. I think those two examples are worthy of a discussion on scope creep but not clear policy violations atm. The intent is to be used on active calls which I believe is a great idea. A clear violation would be the drones actively patrolling and identify suspicious behavior. That’s bad and a clear violation of the policy. Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn more about it. This is one of those areas that can be a slippery slope. Look at the UK and the terrible state it’s in. On the flip side I would hope that so long as the guardrails are in place that first response drones can be good for all parties.
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  > Please let us know how this violates the 4th. It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
  - infecto 3mo ago
    Maybe similar trajectory but fundamentally Chatrie is about compelling stored data from a third party. I don’t believe there is any meaningful overlap between that and direct visual observation from police. Folks should argue it in court if so but I don’t see the link to 4th violations.
    - ceejayoz 3mo ago
      Chatrie has sections like this: > Second, Location History allows police to reconstruct “retrospective[ly],” and with no real effort, people’s comings and goings in any area, enabling “tireless and absolute surveillance” of any number of people in any number of places. A certain level of drone surveillance would seem likely to rise to this level of intrusion, and I think ALPR cameras already do.
      - infecto 3mo ago
        Agree I wish the article focused more on the storage and availability of the data instead of the narrative they wrote. It’s in there but not the focus which imo is the issue. I think it’s great to have the drones as active response but like ALPR, it’s ripe for abuse after the fact. These systems can have great value but are ripe for abuse, I hope organizations catchup to build the proper guardrails.

nozzlegear 3mo ago

> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. I'm the person who posted the article lol. The article lists several cases where the drones were used to investigate random people – not active calls. They deployed drones to spy on some guy listening to music on his roof, and used drones to follow two "suspicious individuals" who were just driving to a basketball court. Another instance had drones hovering around outside an apartment building's windows while police were apparently inside. The department's drone use policy says that footage should only be recorded when the drone is at the scene to minimize the exposure of people unrelated to the investigation, but the investigators found that the drones are recording constantly, from takeoff to landing, and capturing everyone and their dog in between. > Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Put me on the Supreme Court and I'd be happy to do that for you. Until then, there are more qualified people to do it and the rest of us will just know it when we see it. :) edit: removed the part where I said u/infecto didn't read the article – it's clear we both read it and came away with different conclusions.

infecto 3mo ago
[dead]