DHS Drones to determine if person is armed and to intercept cell phone signals

Again, not a lawyer, but the ruling required that someone would not have reason to believe their activities were private. It said

"Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more."

I assume it has something to do with a "reasonable expectations of privacy". In my opinion looking inside a house would fall outside of what is allowed. Whether it be a camera looking through a window or more advanced means. At least I hope they would not be allowed.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/
Click to expand...

I find it quizzical, and frankly a little comical, that the courts both read unenumerated rights into the constitution (privacy) at their convenience then back out again. Or at least it would be comical it it weren't so terrifying.
 
I would like to refer you to my Facebook page bob gray Vernon AZ. and also senator Rand Paul's page.

You will find that a number of different issues are coming to a head which should cause great concern for all 2 A advocates.

A number of these issues are purely political and outside the rules of this forum but will have major impact on our sport.
 
Last edited:
pnac said:
**Might help if I actually post the link!
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ad.main/13501/
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to say anything....;)

But that makes for an interesting read, especially when you consider the killing point for the OV-10, well aside from the extra-legal means of procurement, was, according to that article the hardpoints would be maintained.

Now granted as MLeake has pointed out, it would cost a whole heap ton to procue Predators without hardpoints. But the fact still remains, do we want Predators, with or without weapon stations, or OV-10s for that matter, operating inside CONUS, in missions directed towards U.S. citizens?
 
mrbatchelor said:
I find it quizzical, and frankly a little comical, that the courts both read unenumerated rights into the constitution (privacy) at their convenience then back out again. Or at least it would be comical it it weren't so terrifying.
Click to expand...

I do not take it they are enumerating new rights, it appears to me they are more finding a standard to apply to our constitutional protections. In this case, the 4th amendment. Really, I don't see any other options. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. We really need a simple standard in order to define this. Is an open letter I leave blowing down the street a protected item? If the police drive by my house and see a giant pot plant growing in my front yard is that an unreasonable search? Do we want every single case that is in doubt to face a constitutional challenge? If not, I would suggest, we need easy to understand standards to apply. The standard the SCOTUS went with was a "reasonable expectation of privacy", if a reasonable person would not expect an item, or an action to be private then the police may observe it just like anyone else. Forgive me for the explanation as I am sure you are already aware of this.

Don't get me wrong, many of the creative interpretations of the constitution we have seen over the years by courts and politicians worry me.
 
overhead said:
. . . . The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. . . .
Click to expand...
Nitpicky correction. The A4 doesn't protect against "unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant." It protects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause.
 
I find it quizzical, and frankly a little comical, that the courts both read unenumerated rights into the constitution (privacy) at their convenience then back out again. Or at least it would be comical it it weren't so terrifying.
Click to expand...

This must be what they mean when some people say "the Constitution is a living document." What does it mean THIS week?:eek:

I don't mean to make light of the situation, it's a sad state of affairs.:(
 
Nitpicky correction. The A4 doesn't protect against "unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant." It protects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause
Click to expand...

Not so nitpicky since the 4A is arguably the one on point for just this situation. Tennesee v Garner 471 US 1 (1985) says apprehension by deadly force of a fleeing (and though it doesn't say so one could extrapolate ANY) suspect is a seizure that is subject to the fourth amendment's reasonableness requirement.
 
The 9th circuit court has issued a ruling which may curb some of the unreasonable searches which are happening. The ruling stops the search of laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices at the border.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ps-border/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

This may be applicable to the restricting the DHS Survelliance drones on american soil. It would be interesting for some of our attorneys to evaluate this ruling and its applicability to remotely searching homes with these drones.
 
A few years ago camera's were installed along the lower Niagara River in Lewiston, there was much objection to them but them were installed anyhow. It was said they were to watch the river for illegal activity such as people coming across and into the USA illegally. The camera's are remote controlled and now spend more time turned around and watching peoples back yards more than the river. These camera's can zoom in and look right in the windows of the houses and have caused people to keep their blinds closed for privacy. Imagine what they can see and do with drones, more and more it is the American citizens that the government is watching.
Internet chatter about asking Eric Holder if drones can be used to kill Americans on American soil, is this fact or fiction ?
 
Internet chatter about asking Eric Holder if drones can be used to kill Americans on American soil, is this fact or fiction ?
Click to expand...

In short, Holder said that he could imagine a possible scenario where UAVs could be used domestically to attack U.S. citizens, but it would have to be something extraordinary (picture a "24"-style plot where the bad guy is driving a truck bomb into the middle of the Superbowl game or something.)

When Holder was asked if drones could be used to attack an American terrorist who was not currently "in combat" (like sitting outside in a café), Holder answered "no".
 
Last edited:
ltc444 said:
The 9th circuit court has issued a ruling which may curb some of the unreasonable searches which are happening. The ruling stops the search of laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices at the border.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ps-border/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

This may be applicable to the restricting the DHS Survelliance drones on american soil. It would be interesting for some of our attorneys to evaluate this ruling and its applicability to remotely searching homes with these drones.
Click to expand...

The 9th drew a distinction between basic inspection of the device -- turning it on, browsing files -- with forensic analysis of the device, which is what happened in the case. I haven't read the actual decision, but from my reading of tech reporting on the case, border agents in the 9th circuit can no longer take intrusive steps like mirroring the storage of such devices to look for evidence later at their leisure, nor can they demand a password to access the device without reasonable suspicion.

A problem remains, however, in that the 9th circuit attached reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause as the criterion for determining whether an invasive forensic exploration of a computer or storage device is constitutional under the 4th amendment. Reasonable suspicion is a horribly vague and easily met standard, as I complained earlier in this thread.

Sadly, even this weak but positive 9th Circuit decision will probably be reversed by the Supreme Court. I don't trust a single member of SCOTUS to fully understand the privacy implications of allowing forensic searches, without justification, of any smartphone, tablet, or laptop that crosses the border. It will be all too easy for them to fall back on the principle that border crossings are subject to arbitrary levels of scrutiny, and ignore the 4th amendment completely. After all, the court has no problem with suspicion-less detention of cars for drug searches within 100-200 miles of the border.
 
Last edited:
Spats McGee said:
Nitpicky correction. The A4 doesn't protect against "unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant." It protects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was nitpicky at all, I worded that horribly...so horribly that it in fact ended up being wrong. Thanks for the correction.
 
MLeake said:
Second, there is the issue of the risks and decisions people are willing to make, from the command and control end, when they are at a safe, video-game like remove from the action.

This is a big deal. It disturbs me how members here are blowing it off.
Click to expand...

I concur this is a really big deal in a number of ways. That's why I was ranting about it, somewhat incoherently upon rereading, some postings back.

Read this; http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/09/living/higher-call-military-chivalry/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

And then Google "did we just kill a kid" and read some of those.

We are dehumanizing war and turning it into slaughter. Certainly not everyone involved. But it's happening. And I fear for our claim as the shining city on the hill.

And to justify it we'll make it antiseptic like Star Trek's episode "A Taste of Armageddon" seemed so civilized.

But it isn't so civilized from the other side. "Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest." -- Bion, Greek bucolic poet (~100 BC)

(Apologies to whoever's signature I stole.)
 
Not to disparage the boys and girl in blue, well sage green, who fly the various drones, but in my interactions with them, they all seemed to view war, and thier part in it, as nothing more than a really realistic flight simulator.

Now, I understand that you have to dehumanize the enemy, and I engaged in a fair bit of it myself, but still, at the end of the day, when you have to police up the fellow you put a burst of M855 into, it puts the war, and killing into perspective. Something the drone operators don't see/do.

And the fact that my government wants to use those same drones over our home soil scares the bejeesus out of me.
 
Would you express the same concerns over helicopter pilots and bomber pilots? Their bombs and rockets can kill large numbers of people and they rarely, if ever, see the end result. Our bomber crews during WWII certainly were not directly exposed to the results of fire bombing crowded cities.
 
We use the unarmed equivalent of those planes now, don't we?

I thought, and it could be that I just lost track of the conversation, that we all pretty much agreed armed drones were a bad idea flying over US soil. I thought the issue that people were debating was the unarmed drones used for surveillance.

I do not want any type of armed plane, manned or unmanned, being used by law enforcement at any level in the US. As far as I know there are not any being used now, though I suppose the military planes certainly could be turned in that direction if someone really wanted to use them.
 
Yeah, I may have been lost too, I was refering to the use of armed drones mainly, even though I still see various 4th Amendment concerns with domestic use of even un-armed surveillance drones.

That being said, I would like to reiterate my view that the use of drones by CBP is completely acceptable.
 
overhead said:
Our bomber crews during WWII certainly were not directly exposed to the results of fire bombing crowded cities.
Click to expand...
True, but bomber crews generally had extremely high casualty rates: The death rate, overall, for RAF Bomber Command crews, for example, was around 44%. That for American crews was lower, but still substantial. So the crews were well aware that it wasn't a game.

Using drones that are capable of being armed, even for surveillance, sets a truly bad precedent, IMO.
 
How about we get a chance to take pot shots at the drone operators from time to time? :) Yes, I know, that is not really funny, but I have an odd sense of humor.

On a more serious note, I am aware that bomber pilots over Europe were in danger and I certainly did not mean to imply that they were not or to insult them or their family members in any way.

I understand why people are nervous about this, I really do. It warms my heart to see so many people questioning governments use of power, the day we stop doing that will be the day our liberties disappear. In this particular instance I am just not that worried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top