2 ms·
To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's alrea
by defen 14y ago
To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's already ok for the cops to tail you without a warrant. But automated vehicle-tracking via drones without a warrant (for example) is still up in the air. No pun intended. It wasn't really a ruling in favor of (or against) privacy.
- eurleif 14y agoSeems to me like drones should be treated the same as thermal imaging cameras, which the Supreme Court ruled required a warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States) because they're not in use by the general public, and thus there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it was a 5-4 decision, and I guess drones might come into use by the general public, so who knows.