Congress mandated that the FAA pass regulations integrating the use of drones into the U.S. navigable airspace. The FAA did so but declined to address the issue of privacy when operating drones. Various states, including Utah, have enacted laws regulating the use of drones by state and local law enforcement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Transparency vs Privacy in the US The Current State of Transparency vs Privacy in the US Most Americans* are concerned about their personal ...
-
Introduction A national DNA database would collect data from millions of citizens across the country and store each individual’s genetic s...
-
(Audible, N.D) Who is Edward Snowden and What did he do? Edward Snowden started working for the Central Intelligence Agency in 2006, where...
Similar to stingrays, I think they absolutely should because drones can capture such a wide apparatus and view, that anyone can be filmed or included in whatever the drone captures. As such, even those with a reasonable expectation of privacy may be hindered from that expectation if a drone captures something that is not approved beforehand or with malicious attempt. So, a warrant, in this case, while not the best case solution, is a good first. step.
ReplyDeleteI believe that law enforcement should require a search warrant before using drones. I felt the same way about stingrays and facial recognition technology. Drones act as a type of search and therefore should require a warrant. As Ryan already noted, they do have the issue of being able to capture bystanders who were not included in the warrant. I am still not sure of the best way to handle that issue but a warrant is a good start.
ReplyDeleteLeaning yes. Drones can capture a lot, and there are plenty of things that can be seen from the air that people wouldn't want filmed. Drones could also potentially film people without their knowledge. However, in public areas that are very visible, there aren't really reasonable expectations of privacy, which is why I'm not fully yes. So perhaps police should need warrants in some areas but not others? In any case though, I think having warrants would be better than not having warrants since that'll ensure that people's privacies are considered and protected.
ReplyDeleteHi Andrew! You bring up a great point. I wonder though, if data is stored on a drone, can law enforcement retroactively search public areas that they wouldn't normally? I think, even in a public space, law enforcement is required to obtain a search warrant for any pursuit of electronic surveillance (i.e. cctv).
DeleteI think that law enforcement should be required to have a search warrant to use drones. Because surveillance (drones in this case) is a search under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant should be obtained prior to use. I feel that without oversight, the governmental use of drones could be abused and violate privacy concerns.
ReplyDeleteI think that law enforcement should have to obtain a warrant to use drones. I would consider drone surveillance to be a search that should be regulated, similarly to how stingray technology is a search. I also think that people have a reasonable expectation that they will not be viewed and recorded from above, unless they are in a public area near a tall building.
ReplyDeleteLaw enforcement should need a warrant in order to use drones. Although they function similarly to police helicopters, which don't need a warrant even though they can see into your backyard/parts of your house, I believe that since drones can be unmanned and fly far lower, they can capture far more data and be used for tracking far easier than helicopters. As they are likely to collect more personal data in higher quality, I believe that it opens the door to far more privacy concerns and 4th Amendment violations, thus drones should require a warrant for usage by police.
ReplyDeleteI also am leaning towards yes in this one. I think that because they can get close to whatever and are basically mobile surveillance cameras they should be used only in conjunction with a warrant. I can see no being a reasonable answer because of safety, but I think that drones are relatively easy to use and can definitely be an invasive search in the proper context, so warrants should be obtained and proper measures should be met when using it for security purposes at an event (like the Super Bowl example that we worked on).
ReplyDeleteThe police should have to get a search warrant first. Drones are not only able to fly, but have cameras with incredible field of view and range. The drones also in the air not only can they easily stay out of sight from people, they also will be able to see things that people on the ground may not be able to see unless they are inside the house. Drones can be very helpful, but the police should need a warrant in order to use it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that law enforcements should receive a warrant before permitting the use of drones. This is because the drones are explicitly used for surveillance/tracking and I believe these qualify under a law enforcement "search", meaning for law enforcement to be able to legally search, then they should use a warrant. Drones are an emerging technology with less rules and regulations, so I think setting a firm rule in required warrants would allow the technology to be used fairly.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that federal and law enforcement drone usage must absolutely be used with a search warrant. I think that with drones, they have so much coverage from the air that it'd absolutely be a breach of privacy without that search warrant. Even in private, enclosed spaces, windows and other objects from the outside might lead them to identify someone/thing as a problem while using the wrong search methods.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, a search warrant should be required. Being able to remotely monitor someone's property undetected from above is a huge invasion of privacy that needs justification. Regulation is also needed to ensure law enforcement only records the property of the person they are allowed to monitor and not the people and their property that might be nearby.
ReplyDelete