Governments Shouldn't Be Allowed to Use a Drone to Spy on You Without a Warrant

This is an interesting topic because if we are talking about ones airspace or private property then I think this might get a little complicated as it has to also fit within peeping-tom laws and FAA laws. If someone is parked on the road and filming me then I can call the cops or go talk to them but I can not force them to leave and it is unlikely the cops would make them leave unless they are posing a threat. Perhaps stalking or harassment? Intimidation? The cops can log their ID. The most I can do is film them with my surveillance cameras and notify my neighbors and local community. Beyond that I would have to decide if stand-your-ground comes into play and that comes with a lot of legal risk.

Likewise if a person is filming me from a drone at least 400 feet AGL and their drone is at least 500 feet away from me then I do not see any laws they are violating. They can use stabilizers, expensive gimbals and optical zoom to "get closer". So if we are adding laws to require a warrant then peeping tom laws would also need to change to prevent recording from outside of ones property, I think. Maybe laws around stalking, harassment and intimidation would have to be amended? Now if they are closer than 500 feet to me that is an FAA violation and below 400 feet AGL over my property that drone is now a clay pigeon.

I like the eff's work in general, I don't think they're right about govt. use of drones based on their helicopter comparison. Simply, if you're going to make a counter argument, then it should be more persuasive (it wasn't to me at least)

> But, as we pointed out in our brief, drones are fundamentally different from helicopters or airplanes. Drones can silently and unobtrusively gather an immense amount of data at only a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. In other words, the government can buy thousands of drones for the price of one helicopter and its hired pilot. Drones are also smaller and easier to operate. They can fly at much lower altitudes, and they can get into spaces—such as under eaves or between buildings—that planes and helicopters can never enter. And the noise created by manned airplanes and helicopters functions as notice to those who are being watched—it’s unlikely you’ll miss a helicopter circling overhead when you’re sunbathing in your yard, but you may not notice a drone.

Just bc something is easier and cheaper to use, it doesn't pteclude its use by govt. officials in public spaces. They could have hired a helicopter instead, and then the eff wouldn't have an argument. The motivations behind the action needs to be addressed, not the tools used to carry out the actions. However, without the privacy angle this wouldn't be an eff case.

Were the drone oeprators even allowed to use the airspace at the altitude they did? Any illegally acquired evidence can't be used by them. I have no specifics of this situation so I can't say.