What liberty does a drone with a camera break? Seems like a nice optimization on police resources.
In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/158/
See also "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime"
The result of overcriminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character.
https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Rey...
Not going to dig in either of those links because I suspect they go down the data mining route more like a flock less about active calls. If you would like to point out why these are bad for active calls I am all ears.
I see your distinction better now. The Reynolds essay speaks a little more to the issue at hand. Essentially the technology allows for scope creep. Previously the limiting factor for physical police surveillance was officer FTEs, which creates a lower bound for the conditions that predicate an "active call." When this constraint is lifted, then Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”
Either the laws need to be updated to have equal friction for the police to do surveillance, or we need to physically prevent police from having access to modern surveillance technology.
If you have any case law that shows general cameras break the 4th I would love to read.
Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that 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.
It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant.
> 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.
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.