HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here Come the Drone Wars ... » Reply #24

Reply #24


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 12:39 PM

24. We disagree, fair enough

But look at your first example, did the police have to go through the courts for the videos made near the start of the Boston Marathon? It is well worth remembering that it is the holders of those records who have the right to release them to the police - not the people pictured in the videos. It is true that business owners can refuse access but do you really think that happens?

Black boxes (Onstar) I've had to drive a car equipped with one of those and know damn well they are inaccurate - once it had me doing 99 mph on the loop in Shute Hill, Mawnan Smith (excuse the horrendous link).
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=mawnan+smith&ll=50.114018,-5.107924&spn=0.002594,0.005477&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Mawnan+Smith,+Cornwall,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=18

I agree that drones patrolling night and day are an imposition, but then so are number plate recognition systems and we have those in this country already. Untaxed, uninsured cars are caught regularly by these. Speeding, not so much because the law here is that there has to be due warning (400 meters?) of "traffic control cameras" such as speed cameras or red light cameras.

Even with these warnings the fact remains that someone on public property has no reason to expect privacy. Equally someone on unscreened private land that is visible from a public place has no expectation of privacy, currently. But current common law practice is subverted by modern technology.

The Argus camera has recently been posted about on this forum and, obviously, there is little that would not be visible to this system. Even prior to Argus the use of ultra-long lens zooms by the paparazzi has rendered privacy on private land moot and legislating against it is a nightmare; the obvious questions are does the First Amendment trump the Fourth? and if so what is the position about private "newsmen" passing such pictures on to the Government?

I reiterate you should not expect 4th Amendment privacy in any public area, or even in the open air on your own land.

A separate question is "should the Constitution be amended to take into account this new visibility?" and I think we would both agree that it should.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
xchrom Jul 2013 OP
marmar Jul 2013 #1
intaglio Jul 2013 #2
Pholus Jul 2013 #3
intaglio Jul 2013 #4
Pholus Jul 2013 #5
intaglio Jul 2013 #6
Pholus Jul 2013 #7
intaglio Jul 2013 #8
randome Jul 2013 #10
Pholus Jul 2013 #12
intaglio Jul 2013 #13
Pholus Jul 2013 #16
KoKo Jul 2013 #11
intaglio Jul 2013 #14
Javaman Jul 2013 #19
intaglio Jul 2013 #20
Javaman Jul 2013 #29
intaglio Jul 2013 #30
The Straight Story Jul 2013 #18
intaglio Jul 2013 #22
The Straight Story Jul 2013 #23
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply We disagree, fair enough
intaglio Jul 2013 #24
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #26
intaglio Jul 2013 #27
G_j Jul 2013 #9
intaglio Jul 2013 #15
Pholus Jul 2013 #17
Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #31
intaglio Jul 2013 #32
Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #33
intaglio Jul 2013 #34
Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #35
intaglio Jul 2013 #36
Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #21
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #25
forestpath Jul 2013 #28
Please login to view edit histories.