Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?

[russ_watters]

I didn't think I was misrepresenting it, but I'm open to correction. It sounds like he's saying he doesn't see much need for privacy.

Yes. Why you think the Orwell quote has any relevance to that is something you will have to explain, but it sounds like you are saying that a person who sees little right to privacy must have the Orwell quote in mind as a basis. That's just plain wrong. As a person who also doesn't need much privacy, I still do need a little in the following areas:

1. Critical personal information (passwords, bank accounts, etc.).
2. Reasonable physical humility (that's also a matter of respect for others -- I'm not going to the supermarket naked).

That's really about it. The issue of covering up doing something wrong just doesn't enter my head. The corollary that since I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't need privacy doesn't either: My bank accounts are private not because I'm laundering money or otherwise committing fraud, but because I don't want it stolen.

Don't let the fact that virtually all privacy test-cases involve a person who was doing something wrong mislead you into thinking that hiding criminal activity is the only/primary/major issue for either side.

So, yes, I see a purpose for privacy, even if I'm not doing anything wrong.

As do I. But again, the fact that I see a much more limited purpose for privacy doesn't then mean that I buy into the Orwell quote. It is a complete strawman - no one in this thread has suggested that that be an operating principle governing privacy rights. Please trust me when I say this: despite the fact that virtually every privacy test case involves letting someone go free for a crime they committed, that doesn't mean that I believe that (or believe that you and your side believe) that covering up crimes is the only reason for privacy.

 

[nitsuj]

I threw "spying" in there to help define privacy.

I guess in the same sense that store security cameras are there for "historical record" not for "active monitoring".

Independence & freedom is a funny thing, and I wonder if particularly for the US this translates into privacy being thought of as similar to freedom, something to defend, somewhat of a right. Perhaps another "generation" difference. "Give up privacy & give up freedom." type of reasoning. As a very general statement, it seems US citizens are wary of giving their state power. I appreciate it truly is a trust thing, the state starts off as laissez faire and inevitably becomes more and more autocratic/liberal/"communist" as "trust" develops. (more precedence(s) than "trust")In addition the intent of more surveillance isn't at all to prosecute more frequently.

Without question, if it is the whole who agree to "give up" some privacy, it is for the purpose of "protecting" the whole. In other words, I wouldn't think it's to "actively monitor" and catch some individual breaking a road law, or some other "petty crime" that doesn't impact "the whole" in any sense. And not even remotely for revealing personal & private information to the authorities, or worse your neighbors!

In any case "for the greater good" should always prevail in a free country, it does in majority of them. I think I need an older persons perspective of why privacy is "sacred". The only reasons (less criminal acts) I can think of are;

1. Shame/embarrassment
2. Being exploited by a personal/private secrete, i.e. blackmail with regard to point 1., trade secretes & other capitalism/political related reasons.

Looks like vulnerability in some sense is the common denominator there.

Fear from the unknown then, ya'll will get comfortable with it, or change your fringe behaviors

Emotions hold zero weight in the face of "threats to the whole". ("threats to the whole" is too loose of a term, I am no policy writer)

imo This concept of surveillance already happens on the internet.

 

[Andre]

Obviously the need of privacy is very personal, depending on a lot of factors, are you introvert or extrovert, exhibitionistic or not? You want to be in the limelight or blend in with the background? You can't steer that. Some people get the creeps if they have the idea that they are being spied upon.

Problems only start to arise if you are on one side of the spectrum and you decide that everybody should be.

 

[nitsuj]

Andre those seem like emotive reasons for being private, and I don't think privacy in this sense is about how comfortable someone is in public / on television ect.

Personal feelings with regard to introverts/extroverts has no place in this kind of debate. It's far too subjective and "action-less".

"I can't go outside today, there is a drone in the sky and I'm a little to shy knowing it might look at me". Perhaps I'm just being ignorant.

Being "spied" on I feel is different from surveillance. Do you feel "spied" on when entering a bank or in particular a casino where you are actively monitored?

We have to only consider "what a reasonable person would ..." . I think it is unreasonable to feel uncomfortable due to surveillance. In particular if such surveillance is common place & well known.

Perhaps that being a key point, well known surveillance.I am the worst speller I know, in your tag It should be spelled Ottawa (sorry, I swear i only correct name misspellings, I couldn't careless about plain old words)

 

[Andre]

I was not complete enough, so it's my fault that you wasted so many words sorry.

It was supposed to complement what Lisa said.

True, in public places there are cameras, regular and plain clothes police, and other people around. We know we are being observed.

What I don't like about this: the drones observe people in areas where they have an expectation of privacy.

..

Are you saying a person has no expectation of privacy in your backyard? If so, I think you're wrong.

I don't know much about law, but the legal term for the backyard is "curtilage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

...
There have been several cases challenging what defines "curtilage" in specific instances, but how can one argue a person has no expectation of privacy in, say, a *fenced* yard on his own property?

Hence if you are in a public place, fine, if you are in a private place, no, at least not in a routine setting and without prior notice. And it should be understand that this is for preventing creeps etc. Making the means worse than the end. Of course you can make deals (agreed laws) when and where and under what conditions drone observation can be done.

 

[nitsuj]

Well the point is weak at best, if to suggest that surveillance is bad if people are under surveillance in an area where privacy is implied...i.e. entrapment.

Well duh, surveillance is not the same as spying, that's old ground that has plenty legal precedence.

And not at all a waste of words from my perspective. Putting these opinions of mine in writting, and re-reading / editing it helps me better understand my own opinion/position. However weird that is. Otherwise everything I write on here is a "waste of words". It surely isn't for your benefit, but is for mine. It's all take it or leave it...

 

[russ_watters]

Obviously the need of privacy is very personal...

Indeed. However, this is also a legal issue, so there needs to be objective, consistent standards for determining the legal ramifications of privacy issues. People are not entitled to just decide for themselves, based on their personal feelings, what the police can do.

 

[Andre]

Indeed. However, this is also a legal issue, so there needs to be objective, consistent standards for determining the legal ramifications of privacy issues.

Exactly...

Of course you can make deals (agreed laws) when and where and under what conditions drone observation can be done.

 

[Jasongreat]

What does it matter the semantics of "privacy"? The US used to be a nation that pushed the idea that only children need someone looking over their every move! As adults we don't need a babysitter, but that idea is long gone, everyone thinks they have the right to "correct" behaviour they don't agree with, not that its harmfull, only that it is "wrong"! Most laws lately seemed to be aimed at that purpose, which is anti-american, imo, in the least, anti- constitutional most likely, but who cares aslong as you the majority agrees! Nothing better than living in a mobocracy, imo!

 

[TheMadMonk]

I'd love to be interesting enough that I had to constantly worry about the Government spying on me, must be amazing to be so paranoid.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd love to be interesting enough that I had to constantly worry about the Government spying on me, must be amazing to be so paranoid.

Not caring can be very liberating.

 

[Jasongreat]

I reazlize cac was the original poster, but I thought op was in reference to the original post, as in the questions originally brought up. On my phone it won't let me reply to a post, so I tried to make it clear. We do have cameras, why does it matter if they are pervasive as other countries? I feel they are too pervasive for what I was taught were american ideals. Freedom and liberty don't coincide with someone looking over your shoulder at all times, atleast imo.

 

[Jasongreat]

And if the paranoid comment was directed at me, I am not paranoid, I live my life as I would like, whoever can watch if they want. Our federal government does not have the right to do so, unless you can get your mob to ammend the constitution though, imo.

 

[CAC1001]

In addition the intent of more surveillance isn't at all to prosecute more frequently.

Without question, if it is the whole who agree to "give up" some privacy, it is for the purpose of "protecting" the whole. In other words, I wouldn't think it's to "actively monitor" and catch some individual breaking a road law, or some other "petty crime" that doesn't impact "the whole" in any sense. And not even remotely for revealing personal & private information to the authorities, or worse your neighbors!

In any case "for the greater good" should always prevail in a free country, it does in majority of them.

I disagree here. That highly depends on just what the "greater good" is. A free society is all about protecting the rights of the individual. "For the greater good" is usually a collectivist form of thinking. You could infringe on people's individual rights in all manner of different ways in the name of the "greater good." "Greater good" is an arbitrary statement as well. Some could say allowing surveillance drones is in the interest of the greater good, others could say that it is in the interest of the greater good to not allow the surveillance drones.

I think I need an older persons perspective of why privacy is "sacred". The only reasons (less criminal acts) I can think of are;

1. Shame/embarrassment
2. Being exploited by a personal/private secrete, i.e. blackmail with regard to point 1., trade secretes & other capitalism/political related reasons.

Looks like vulnerability in some sense is the common denominator there.

Fear from the unknown then, ya'll will get comfortable with it, or change your fringe behaviors

Emotions hold zero weight in the face of "threats to the whole". ("threats to the whole" is too loose of a term, I am no policy writer)

imo This concept of surveillance already happens on the internet.

Privacy is sacred because it's a free society and you are supposed to be able to live your life in private, minus a few exceptions. You aren't supposed to have to justify to the government why you should be able to have privacy, the government should have to justify to the people why it should have certain powers to occassionally infringe on privacy. In a free society, you shouldn't have to justify to the government why you want to do anything, the government has to justify to the people why it should be able to put limits on certain freedoms here and there.

You are generally free to say whatever you want, minus a few exceptions. You are generally free to own any firearm and weapon you want, minus a few exceptions. You don't have to justify to the government why you should be allowed to say this or that or why you should be allowed to own this or that firearm. You don't have to justify why you should be allowed to borrow this or that book from the library.

 

[lisab]

And if the paranoid comment was directed at me, I am not paranoid, I live my life as I would like, whoever can watch if they want. Our federal government does not have the right to do so, unless you can get your mob to ammend the constitution though, imo.

Anyone can watch you? Interesting. In your own fenced yard? When you're with your significant other, maybe being affectionate? Can they film you? Film your kids?

I don't mean these questions to be confrontational, I just am curious about where the line is.

 

[ThomasT]

Surveillance drones would be used to monitor high crime areas and dangerous ongoing situations. This is a good thing, imho. All this stuff about the drones spying on people's back yard activities is just silly, imo. For one thing, there would never be enough drones to do that comprehensively. For another, even though US law enforcement individuals sometimes act in questionable ways, there's really no reason to believe that any level of government would use surveillance drones in a way that contradicts people's right to privacy.

My opinion is that surveillance drones won't affect people's privacy, and will help wrt the enforcement of the law.