Posted on 09/12/2014 12:30:24 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Americans should be more concerned about their privacy being invaded by the spread of drones, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told an Oklahoma City audience on Thursday.
Speaking before a group of faculty members and students at Oklahoma City University’s law school on Sept. 11, Justice Sotomayor said “frightening” changes in surveillance technology should encourage citizens to take a more active role in the privacy debate. She said she’s particularly troubled by the potential for commercial and government drones to compromise personal privacy.
Said Justice Sotomayor:
There are drones flying over the air randomly that are recording everything that’s happening on what we consider our private property. That type of technology has to stimulate us to think about what is it that we cherish in privacy and how far we want to protect it and from whom. Because people think that it should be protected just against government intrusion, but I don’t like the fact that someone I don’t know…can pick up, if they’re a private citizen, one of these drones and fly it over my property.
Technological advances make it possible for devices to “listen to your conversations from miles away and through your walls,” Justice Sotomayor said. “We are in that brave new world, and we are capable of being in that Orwellian world, too.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
There are a bunch on the high court. Thanks for the tip, Soto.
What she means is that drones should be painted Red or Blue, so she would know which ones she should be afraid of.
Seriously, what are they going to see that can't be seen on Google Earth?
I would say that the airspace above a private residence should be traffic limited below a certain altitude (say 100 feet). This has more to do with noise abatement than privacy. Due to the necessity of flying, airspace has to be public space with restrictions.
As for news law enforcement, no problem. Flying over a residence to view the back yard is no different than an officer looking over the fence.
As for commercial, they should limit their flight paths to above 100’ and to the greatest extent possible, observe public roads.
Americans should have been more concerned with becoming fundamentally transformed too.
Wasn’t the Wise Latina the one who giggled when she told an Albany Law School graduation class that ‘we’ don’t interpret’ the law...we MAKE the law! And if I’m not mistaken the group of ‘enlightened ones’ also giggled away.
So whether Sotomayer is right or wrong, I’m not interested in her pontificating on anything.
Really, is this going to affect her somehow? Why else would she be concerned?
Blind squirrel incident.
Somehow, the news process for "newsworthy" events has managed to survive with helicopters. But what about any jerk who wants to fly one over my property? What about burglars who want to case the joint? Or stalkers?
And lets not forget that drones are able to access places that helicopters cannot.
There is no way that a law can say well, "news organizations" are professional so they should be exempt from the ban that applies to private citizens. (As I have often observed here on FR, from a Constitutional perspective, there is no such thing as "The Press" as some sort of elite group that is afforded special legal privileges that are unavailable to normal citizens.
Besides, look ahead say, 20-30 years, when the novelty of drones has worn off, the price has come way down, and the sky is blackened by a traffic jam of private drones overhead operated by God knows who.
Imagine the risk to life and property of drones falling out of the sky because of mechanical malfunction or human error. Not to mention malicious terrorist activity.
Imagine every commercial establishment doing drone delivery as part of normal operations, and think about what that would actually be like.
None of this bothers you?
Me, feeding the chickens & gathering eggs for breakfast, in my robe.
I have a fence around my property for privacy and (limited) protection of backyard belongings. Drone footage provides more than a peek. It provides a map too.
Still images are different from video footage. Commercial satellite imagery doesn’t have great resolution. (But that’s about to change. Much higher resolutions are now allowed.)
Of course it bothers me. I said so up front. My questions were not posed based on my feelings. I was simply interested in the implications of your statement about using drones without a warrant and the related restrictions it might inherently impose elsewhere.
All of your points are good ones and I agree with you. See #49.
“Wouldn’t you just love to see pipe bottle rockets with miniature EMP capabilities... say 50 foot radius.”
Each with 100’ of kite string attached would be far more sporting.
Google Earth probably can’t look in your windows.
A high quality drone can look in your windows and if the windows are closed you probably won’t see or hear the drone. With the quality of cameras available these day they can count the hairs on that mole on the back of your neck.
“Drones should be outlawed period. Citizens should be allowed to shoot them down....”
LOL.... you might want to consider that some folks may very well return fire.
I own a Quadcopter. My professional setup cost me about $3500. I have a GoPro camera mounted on the craft. I use it for land and seascape video—it’s a hobby at the moment. It takes incredible footage for these kinds of things. I plan to use it for SAR and perhaps real-estate sales.
You most certainly wouldn’t want me to think that you are shooting at me—trust me on that. Now, anyone shooting down my craft will have committed a felony and will also be subject to civil proceeding.
Now, I am a responsible and cautious pilot and I couldn’t care less about what others are doing in they’re back yard.
The Genie is already out of the bottle and these so called drones are here to stay. There are laws already in place to deal with the jerks that fly irresponsibly.
Follow the same clearance regs for manned aircraft and we have no problems. Bust clearance minimums over my property and your toy is toast.
Why would you think I was shooting at you, since you're not riding it? (That's the whole point of a drone, isn't it?)
In terms of anyone shooting down your drone being subject to civil penalties, under my solution (outlawing them) you would be the one who would be breaking the law.
You may be right that drones are here to stay. I hope not. But I'm not expecting that the government will change its rules just because of what I post on FR. If it were inclined to do that, we would still be the land of the free and the home of the brave, instead of the land of the fleeced and the home of the slaves.
I remain alarmed that she (it) is a supreme court justice.
Good thing it chooses not to pro-create.
I think a manned helicopter can fly at 500’ above your house. Following FAA rules, I should not go above 400’. Well darn, it looks like you and I aren’t going to get along. LOL
Here is a clue: If I can bring it down with birdshot, it is too low,
And the reg reads “within 500 ft”, IIRC. It is more than just altitude
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.