Posted on 07/30/2013 7:53:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Drone surveillance in the United States does not require a warrant, but the practice remains limited, the FBI told Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in a letter after he placed a hold on James Comey’s nomination to be the new FBI director.
“[T]he FBI does not, and has no plans to use [unmanned aerial vehicles] to conduct general surveillance not related to a specific investigation or assessment,” Stephan Kelly, the assistant director at the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, wrote Paul.
Kelly said that UAVs, or drones, have only been used for surveillance in the United States 10 times since 2006, in cases related to “kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive investigations.”
Extant Supreme Court rulings suggest that such surveillance does not qualify as a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, Kelly added, and so does not require a warrant.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
We’re the government.
We do as we please.
Using technology to spy into people’s homes is no different than entering their home. This is a battle our conservative leaders need to fight with all they have. It will win people over instantly.
According to the U.S. Constitution they would need a warrant. Our Founders fought and won a war against a tyrant who used such methods. No general warrants shall be issued!
The way I see it is that I don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while walking down the street.
Taking a leak in my yard shouldn’t get me arrested for indecent exposure when all that can see me is government.
It was less than a decade ago when we were told that these would never be used over American soil and such thoughts were the stuff of conspiracy theorists.
Today the same people tell us that they’ll do as they please with them.
“Using technology to spy into people’s homes is no different than entering their home”
They can use binoculars to scan my windows (with shades drawn, if needed), but don’t smash in my front door with a ram followed by a swat team.
There IS a whole lot of difference there!
Other than a 90 degree (or thereabouts) change in azimuth of observation, there is not much difference between a police car cruising down the street in front of your house and a drone flying over it.
Unless you are sunbathing nude in your fenced back yard. (Not really a good idea. Some teenager with a quad-copter will have the video on YouTube before your sunburns starts to hurt!)
;-)
...for helicopters too?
Oddly enough there are things that are completely legal in private but illegal in public.
What happens when there is no private?
No such thing as a 4th Amendment
If you are investigating (surveilling) people, you need warrants.
“I am perpetual I keep the country clean.”
Citizen, this is a check for your 4th amendment license...
“Extant” rulings “suggest” ???!!!!
And this is supposed to be the basis for a wanton violation of our liberty?
Methinks it’s time for the FBI director to chat with Mike Kelly, Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa. These gentlemen, I’m sure, will make it abundantly clear to the FBI that, suggestive “extant rulings” aside, there is no freakin’ way they can conduct domestic surveillance operations without a proper search warrant.
Only your Mother gets away with, “Because I said so.”
You think you’ve private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I’m watching all the time
I’m made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I’m electric, electric spy
I’m protective electric eye
Always in focus
You can’t feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don’t know I’m there
I take a pride in probing
All your secret moves
My tearless retina
Takes pictures that can prove
OK. By this reasoning, some group of private citizens should be able to put up a fleet of drones to monitor our treasonous politicians and bureaucrats 24/7/365, and we should expect no complaints.
Those against the Patriot Act were labeled as such as well.
I live in LA (though hopefully not much longer), and we have police helicopters whopping about at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes they even help in interfering with ongoing criminal activity. They should have a warrant for this?
Drones would theoretically spread out the distance as to how such other police assets could be utilized...in addressing crime, that is. There’s the catch, one guesses. But would I like the LAPD to stop using helicopters? I don’t think so.
Fighting crime in progress is one thing, but surveilling citizens is quite another.
This is a battle our conservative leaders need to fight with all they have.
LLS
Except that what we are talking about here is a technology that will enable the government to park an invisible police car outside your house and watch (and record) it continuously, and to simultaneously track (and record) everywhere you go when you leave it.
There’s the rub right there...SHOULDN’T
Now, as for ‘drone’ vs. ‘cruiser’: There’s a reason I put up a PRIVACY fence. A cop can only see up the boundaries I may put up, a drone does so much more.
Soon we’ll all be reading of the great new high-tech gadgets mounted on said drones. Infrared, sonar, electronic surveillance, etc. Even the cops are not allowed to use those wall penetrating ‘viewers’.
How soon before it becomes a crime to shield your home from the outside world....You know, ‘if you have nothing to hide....’
I agree. When I see “no different than” statements I usually disregard them because there there are almost always differences.
I’m with you there.
Best to You and Yours.
citizens to FBI - yes it does
Oddly enough there are things that are completely legal in private but illegal in public.
What happens when there is no private?
This sorta thing makes me wanna start digging down underground and become a “mole-person”... The after centuries of “Progressive utopia” us Morlocks can pop up and eat some of them tasty Eloi
“Unless you are sunbathing nude in your fenced back yard. (Not really a good idea. Some teenager with a quad-copter will have the video on YouTube before your sunburns starts to hurt!)”
BOL! Even pre teeners might do the scanning.
Okay.
Just so long as you agree that blowing them out of the air with a 12 gauge, 3 inch magnum turkey load doesn't require a hunting permit.
Putting a camera in someones back yard to collect evidence has always needed a search warrant, but flying a camera into someones backyard does not?
Idiots.
Totalitarian, Unconstitutional Traitors to the Union, who are... idiots.
My country is slipping away...
5.56mm
The technology might be more sophisticated than you think.
fine, but do you want police to follow you everywhere you go and not hve a reason to do it other than they just can?
it is one thing to see officer shoot-yer-dog just driving by the neighborhoodperiodically and noticing you doing something in your yard. it’s another when the state actively surveils you constantly to build huge case files on you and know what you’ve done better than yourself, and you have no idea why. we are not east germany.
thank you, exactly. why some people are just fine with a police state unchecked is beyond me. “technology” is NOT and acceptable excuse to just allow it unchecked and to ignore the law of requiring warrants.
“Methinks it’s time for the FBI director to chat with Mike Kelly, Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa. These gentlemen, I’m sure, will make it abundantly clear to the FBI that, suggestive “extant rulings” aside, there is no freakin’ way they can conduct domestic surveillance operations without a proper search warrant.”
You are kidding right???? These three chest pounders are going to do something about it?
So far they are 0 out of 4 on the “phony scandals”.
Holder is still walking around free and not in jail for his contempt of congress and perjury charges...
These three have been lied to some many times by people under oath that most of the Obama admin would be in jail for perjury and they do........nothing but pound their chest for the TV.
“FBI does not, and has no plans to use...”
Hold them to that statement, Rand!
Kidding? No.
Chest thumpers? Hah. Who would YOU suggest ? Lindsey Graham? John McCain?
Troll.
Conservative leaders? Where?
FUMFCSMF’s. Prattle to your boots, you bastards of humanity.
Do you support drones along the border to enhance border security and interdict smuggling? Do you support drones off our coast for the same reason?
I think drones can make sense in specific situations, but you could make a good argument that drones along the border would unfairly intrude on persons who live near the border.
For specific uses - tracking criminal suspects instead of several surveillance units being needed they seem to be a good fit. It would save taxpayers lots of money. I also agree that non-stop 24/7 drone coverage for no articulated reason would violate the spirit of the constitution.
This is one of those difficult issues that will require conservatives to articulate reasonable exceptions or we will lose the arguments. I don’t think we can fall back to a blanket negative response. Drones would definitely be the best way to patrol the northern border with Canada and there are lots of spots on the southwest border where they would be extremely effective.
I think the recent case law on police placing GPS trackers on vehicles in public places seems to indicate that the courts may view some drone use as an unreasonable intrusion on privacy requiring a warrant if it is targeted against an individual and does not involve the border.
What happens when there is no private?
Great point. The less privacy there is, the more Tyrannical government will become.
“Other than a 90 degree (or thereabouts) change in azimuth of observation, there is not much difference between a police car cruising down the street in front of your house and a drone flying over it.”
When drones are regularly equipped with thermal imaging equipment that can see right through you fences, window shades, and walls, then there is a world of difference.
Won’t work, they’ll just get the FAA to declare it “restricted airspace”, or require civilians to get “drone licenses” and file their flightpaths with the FAA for approval.
Drones for me, but not for thee!
Yes, good point. We should also remember that these things will drop off in cost dramatically over the next few years. So, while the government could never pay enough officers’ salaries to do general surveillance of the citizenry 24 hours a day, they WILL be able to afford swarms of drones to accomplish the same task.
“For specific uses - tracking criminal suspects instead of several surveillance units being needed they seem to be a good fit. It would save taxpayers lots of money. I also agree that non-stop 24/7 drone coverage for no articulated reason would violate the spirit of the constitution.”
The problem with saying that we need to allow them for “reasonable uses”, is that they will not only be used for those “reasonable uses”. Remember when SWAT teams were only going to ever be used for hostage rescue situations? Now they are used daily as a matter of course whenever the police feel like it.
You can’t give the government a sledgehammer and expect them to use it delicately. Government is an unthinking beast that will abuse whatever tools you give it access to.
If the government wanted to watch you or your home they can already do that with satellites - they would not need drones. Drones already exist and they grow every 6 months in capability and decrease in price. Period. There is no way to prevent them - we can only attempt to put safeguards in place to protect personal liberties pursuant to the constitution.
However, outside of your home there is very little legal basis for privacy - if I can see your house in a plane there is no way to legally prevent the government to see your home with a drone. Google Earth is pretty darned accurate and we can’t legally stop them. I have heard of cases where county tax assessors have used it to locate new construction on homes, new swimming pools, and new decks/patios and levy new property taxes on homeowners.
Technology is here to stay and it will continue to grow- the key question for those of us concerned with personal liberties is how we protect personal freedoms. The blanket “no” is not going to win us a chair at the table and it does not reflect reality. They already do the same stuff with planes and the blanket negative response is not realistic and it will preclude conservatives from shaping the debate.
Do you think a majority of Americans would oppose the use of a drone to find a lost 10 year old in the forest, or track a wildfire from the air, or catch smugglers on the border? The obvious answer is a majority of Americans would be fine with it.
Your SWAT analogy is very valid and I agree that it is now far overused and abused. However, the answer to that problem is the same as the drone problem - have a government that people can trust and demand accountability from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.