There is no real Constitutional question with regard to prohibiting individual or corporate surveillance carried out via drones. On the contrary, private individuals/companies using drones to video or photograph people and objects in public places could argue they have a First Amendment right to do so. There are some laws (i.e., state voyeurism laws) that prohibit taking footage of individuals in places in which they may expect privacy, but generally not in public places. I'm not as clear on this, but I believe private entities can use drones to take footage of private property as well, though, again, with some restrictions (i.e., CA Civ. Code 1708.8). The Fourth Amendment applies to government surveillance via drones, but in a limited (I would say anachronistic) fashion under Supreme Court interpretations. In Florida v. Riley, police did not need a warrant to conduct aerial surveillance of private property from a helicopter; essentially the Court ruled that private citizens do not own or have privacy rights to airspace roughly 400ft above the property. In Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled police did need a warrant to use a thermal imaging camera to peer inside an individual's home. Taken together, these cases suggest the government generally does not need a warrant to use a drone to conduct aerial surveillance over a broad area that includes both public and private property, so long as the drone is not equipped with sensors that can penetrate the walls of homes and other legally recognized private areas (sheds, possibly car interiors, etc.). Why are people uncomfortable with drone surveillance? Because drones can quietly watch an entire town for many hours without refueling, enabling a pervasive, secret surveillance that helicopters or traffic cameras cannot match. Low-end models are cheap enough that anyone b a global corporation, your homeowner's association, your creepy neighbor b can purchase a drone (a parrot drone is $300 on Amazon). Importantly, you cannot really avoid a drone, at least not if you're outside. I think people realize there are very few limits on what information can be collected and shared via drones b so what if every time stepped out of the house you were on YouTube? Privacy law is not ready for drones. If you're interested, I've written two blog posts on drones and privacy. This is the first one: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/2112drones-are-coming This is the latest one: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/092congress-demands-drones-over-amer... - Harley Geiger Policy Counsel Center for Democracy & Technology 202-407-8825 harley@cdt.org On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM, M Edward Borasky wrote:

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Martyn Williams wrote:

...

I'm interested in this privacy question and would like to look a bit more closely at it.

Law enforcement, public safety, news organizations, and private companies are already flying over our backyards and taking pictures.

Depending on where you live, Google has even put this online (zoom in on Google Maps and at max zoom it changes from satellite imagery to photos captured by aircraft).

I'm not suggesting everyone is happy with that, but it doesn't seem to provoke the same reaction as the issue of drones.

I for one am not happy that Google is allowed to perform aerial surveillance on citizens of any democracy. It seems to me there's a Constitutional question in the USA. The government in theory can't do that without a court order. and journalists can in theory be shielded by the First Amendment if they keep their act together. But a for-profit corporation apparently has to be in violation of some other law to incur even a Congressional inquiry, and a private citizen must have a *lot* of money to mount a successful civil action against a business as huge as Google.

Some places - Germany, IIRC - have attempted to rein in Google's "Street View" surveillance, but I don't think anyone has even broached the subject in the USA. We should.

...

So, what exactly makes us uncomfortable about drones?

Is it that they're anonymous and remote-controlled? That they can stay up for hours? Perhaps it's the link with what we've seen the military doing? Or perhaps it's that they are capturing video and not photographic images.

I don't have any great insight into this, but I think we need to figure out the objections before we can talk about legislation and regulation.

All of the above. The Constitution protects us from our government in theory, but apparently not from corporations large enough to implement surveillance for profit.

...

Personally, I have less problem with a drone being used to follow and catch a criminal after a crime takes place (much like a helicopter is used today) than one patrolling my neighborhood for hours on end monitoring what's happening.

Similarly, I don't want my neighbor hovering a drone above my garden, but if they can get pretty much the same view from hovering near the boundary line then an airspace restriction might be ineffective.

Martyn

On 02/18/2012 03:55 PM, M Edward Borasky wrote:

...

The question is not "How Much Am I Comfortable With?" It's "What actions can I *legally* take to protect my privacy? I'm guessing I can't block law enforcement drones or interfere with them in any way, but private sector operation over my property is quite another matter.

-- Martyn Williams 2012 John S. Knight Journalism Fellow Stanford University @martyn_williams _______________________________________________ drone-list mailing list drone-list@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

-- Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb Data Journalism Developer Studio 2012LX http://j.mp/DJDS2012LX

"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." -- Paul ErdEs _______________________________________________ drone-list mailing list drone-list@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

_______________________________________________ drone-list mailing list drone-list@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE