3 ms·

There are limits to jurisdiction, well defined. For example, police cannot enter your home without your permission, unless they have a warrant from a judge. So

by beat 12y ago

There are limits to jurisdiction, well defined. For example, police cannot enter your home without your permission, unless they have a warrant from a judge. So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Even having the ability to do this is problematic in the eyes of many judges and many civilians (it would be the equivalent of saying "Well, we went into the house with a warrant, but we didn't actually search the house..." So I am citing as a reason they should not do this the traditions and precedents of common law.

diminoten 12y ago
> So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Very true, I agree. However, I don't see any reason why this would be taking place given what we currently know. Arial surveillance has the distinct advantage of safely observing a public area under their jurisdiction. So yes, they shouldn't avoid warrants by way of arial surveillence (e.g. peeping into back yards), but it's (practically speaking) useful to cover a lot of ground (the same ground they'd already cover) quickly.
- beat 12y ago
  My concern isn't aerial monitoring of large crowds. It's picking out individuals from within those crowds and data-mining their activities before they joined the crowd. That's two removes away from the original idea of aerial surveillance. The ACLU is right to be concerned about it.
underbluewaters 12y ago
I'd go further and say the nature of these new technologies changes what observations should be permitted by law enforcement, with or without a warrant. While automated license plate readers may be collecting the same information that police officers can from a public vantage point, the scale that they can be used at changes the nature of the information. Suddenly it can be used to track the movements of everyone in a city. While it's arguably the "same" information, it vastly changes the calculus of the public benefit vs privacy of the individual. We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect the fundamental differences these new technologies bring about. While it may be legal for law enforcement to fly these surveillance missions now, the public has every right to demand that the laws be changed. The police in Baltimore have proven they are incapable of wielding the privileged status they have without systematically oppressing minorities. It makes sense that we roll back some of the surveillance tools they use to prevent dissent.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect Yes, but the powers-that-be are content to let it all happen by default, because most potential outcomes lets them win. If we just shrug and ignore it, they win. If we wait too long to take action, they can argue that the surveillance is understood and that we've grown used to it, and thus under conventional 4th Amendment analysis, there's no more expectation of privacy. Really, the only way they can lose is by putting the question forward for debate.
shitlord 12y ago
If the airplanes are just capturing data that is already in public view (no expectation of privacy), then how is that any different from cameras mounted on buildings? One uses a plane to cover larger ground, and one is fixed. Neither one requires a warrant if it's just recording things that happen out in the open. I don't disagree with you, but this doesn't seem like a good argument.

by beat 12y ago

diminoten 12y ago

> So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Very true, I agree. However, I don't see any reason why this would be taking place given what we currently know. Arial surveillance has the distinct advantage of safely observing a public area under their jurisdiction. So yes, they shouldn't avoid warrants by way of arial surveillence (e.g. peeping into back yards), but it's (practically speaking) useful to cover a lot of ground (the same ground they'd already cover) quickly.

beat 12y ago
My concern isn't aerial monitoring of large crowds. It's picking out individuals from within those crowds and data-mining their activities before they joined the crowd. That's two removes away from the original idea of aerial surveillance. The ACLU is right to be concerned about it.

underbluewaters 12y ago

I'd go further and say the nature of these new technologies changes what observations should be permitted by law enforcement, with or without a warrant. While automated license plate readers may be collecting the same information that police officers can from a public vantage point, the scale that they can be used at changes the nature of the information. Suddenly it can be used to track the movements of everyone in a city. While it's arguably the "same" information, it vastly changes the calculus of the public benefit vs privacy of the individual. We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect the fundamental differences these new technologies bring about. While it may be legal for law enforcement to fly these surveillance missions now, the public has every right to demand that the laws be changed. The police in Baltimore have proven they are incapable of wielding the privileged status they have without systematically oppressing minorities. It makes sense that we roll back some of the surveillance tools they use to prevent dissent.

CWuestefeld 12y ago
We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect Yes, but the powers-that-be are content to let it all happen by default, because most potential outcomes lets them win. If we just shrug and ignore it, they win. If we wait too long to take action, they can argue that the surveillance is understood and that we've grown used to it, and thus under conventional 4th Amendment analysis, there's no more expectation of privacy. Really, the only way they can lose is by putting the question forward for debate.

shitlord 12y ago

If the airplanes are just capturing data that is already in public view (no expectation of privacy), then how is that any different from cameras mounted on buildings? One uses a plane to cover larger ground, and one is fixed. Neither one requires a warrant if it's just recording things that happen out in the open. I don't disagree with you, but this doesn't seem like a good argument.