Monday, February 27, 2017
QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 7
Congress mandated that the FAA pass regulations
integrating the use of drones into the U.S. airspace by 2015. The FAA failed to address issues of privacy
when operating drones. Various states,
including Utah, have enacted laws regulating the use of drones by state and
local law enforcement. Should the
Congress prohibit the use of drones by federal law enforcement for surveillance
purposes without first obtaining a search warrant?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes. I think the federal government should issue privacy laws for the use of drones without a search warrant. I think that while the states can enact laws, it does not give a nationwide standard, and it could make rulings different throughout the states. I think that by making a federal law, many more people would feel comfortable with the use of drones because they know that they are being regulated. I think this puts a check on the "big brother" powers of government and respects the privacy of the people. I think drones could be useful in many ways, but they should be regulated in order to respect privacy.
ReplyDeleteCongress should prohibit law enforcement from using drones for surveillance purposes without a search warrant. The drone is essentially gaining access to someone’s private property. If there is a camera or audio, the drone may gain information from inside the house or on the property. A warrant must be obtained, just as if a person were in place of the drone.
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutely. A government that can constantly monitor its citizens on such a wide scope is totally in contradiction with the personal liberties the U.S. Constitution is built on. A violation of privacy in this scope needs to be justified with a search warrant, otherwise it's just spying on innocent citizens.
ReplyDeleteYes. A warrant should be necessary for search as the 4th Amendment protects it. Drones are just another method of surveillance, and they should not be used without a specific purpose since their abilities could easily be abused.
ReplyDeleteYes. I think that surveillance, including that done by drone, should require a warrant. This will help limit the potential invasions to people's privacy. Law enforcement would be required to have strong reasoning to use drones for surveillance, which will limit its use to only when it is well justified. I think that drones have too much potential to be misused to not require this type of regulation.
ReplyDeleteYes, definitely. Drones, like every other piece of technology, can be easily abused. To what extent depends on just how high-tech a particular drone is. The fact that a drone can so easily infringe on someone's privacy means that its use without a warrant could constitute an unlawful search, which would be in violation of the 4th Amendment. Therefore, uses of this technology should be regulated.
ReplyDeleteYes, drones should not be used for surveillance without a search warrant. If anyone says otherwise, let me remind them that as technology improves, soon drones will be too tiny to notice and will be cheap enough to deploy in every building. If we do not set our standards for drones, then no other big brother privacy issue matters since anything that could be recorded by something else could be recorded by a drone.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that laws and regulations have to be updated at the same pace as technology. There will always be new advancements in the capabilities of technology that pose new threats to privacy. Drones are fairly inexpensive and easy to operate, meaning it has a large market that should be guided by the law. Drones are becoming a mainstream device, even companies like Amazon intend to start using them for delivery methods. If both large companies and regular citizens have access to drones there should be laws that put limitations on their use.
ReplyDeleteYes, there ought to be a warrant issued before any search is conducted. While I can see an argument behind having a small army of drones for surveillance, especially in the efforts to clean up a particular part of town or possible to guard state interests, but I don't mass surveillance with drones would fly (drone pun). At first I didn't see many differences between drone surveillance and stationary cameras, but these things are better than Bond. They're incredibly cheap, reliable, and effective, especially when compared to the cost, reliability and efficacy of sending an officer to survey a suspect. I'd love to know if anyone knows, what constitutes your property as far as airspace goes. Obviously it wouldn't be super kosher for a government drone to float in your backyard, but satellites, helicopters, and planes are taking pictures from overhead frequently. I think we can agree that in any space in which a physical search mandates a search warrant, there ought to be a warrant obtained for drone searches. But surveillance in public spaces is trickier because there's much less of an expectation to privacy (arguably none).
ReplyDeleteYes, I also think a warrant should be required. The main arguments I've seen from law enforcement are lower cost and better data, which are both valid arguments, but as they are doing more-or-less the same thing as foot patrols, where a warrant is required, it should be clear that a warrant is required here.
ReplyDeleteYes. I feel that a warrant should be required for drone surveillance. A warrant should be required for all kinds of surveillance, especially remote ones, which can more easily cross the line. Someone operating a drone is, in my mind, more likely to violate someone's privacy than someone doing a physical tail.
ReplyDeleteYes, warrants should be required under federal law before law enforcement can use drones for surveillance. I like the point that Kate mentioned about warrants being a valid check in our government's system. With their wide range of capability and ease of use, it would become far too easy to invade people's private spaces without valid reason without requiring a search warrant.
ReplyDeleteYes, warrants should be mandatory. Without warrants, too many privacy issues arise, and potential surveillance could create a potential chilling effect on the population and their actions. I cannot see a good reason for an officer requiring information without a warrant. Just like how they require a warrant to search a home, it should be no different with drones.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think that the federal governmental law enforcement agencies should have to have warrant to use drones for surveillance. Businesses don't even need to have our permission for surveillance. For example, I have never given express permission for Google, through the use of their satellites to take pictures of where I live and the neighborhoods that surround it. Shouldn't they need to get express permission or at least give notice to everybody in the world that they are having satellites take pictures of them? No. That is ridiculous. Think of a drone as a satellite that is not as high up and is not in orbit. Law enforcement agencies already use Google Earth as evidence in court with people, why can't they use their own technology instead of using someone else's technology?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think the federal government should make law enforcement have to acquire a warrant to surveil someone using drones. Separating the matter from the uncomfortable feeling of having machines watching us, it is not very different from the police tailing someone. Since the observation is outside in a public place where anyone could see them, there is no invasion of privacy because no search or seizure ever occurs. Because of that analogy, just like when tailing someone, I believe drones should not be able to observe someone who is not in public. Drones flying overhead and miniature drones that can peek into people's houses through windows are two different things.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteDrones are an especially interesting area right now. I want to say that I support people’s right to own commercial drones—I bought my dad one for Christmas even—I think they really do pose some privacy risks. Cameras today can take high quality (face-recognition quality) photos from miles away, and drones carry cameras exactly that powerful. I imagine that federal agents would not be able to take photos of the inside of your house, but would it be possible to use a drone to follow someone from miles in the air, completely out of sight? Because of how the Supreme Court was divided on the car GPS tracking case, it’s uncertain whether or not this kind of tracking would be allowed.
Yes, I believe that there should be a warrant required for using drones for the purposes of surveillance. Drones have a level of access that other forms of surveillance, like street cameras or satellites, are incapable of achieving. It is a powerful tool that should be regulated in accordance with it's ability to penetrate ones privacy, even if there are other forms of surveillance that we consider common that do not require a warrant.
ReplyDeleteYes, there should be a law enacted stopping federal law enforcement agencies from using drones to surveil individuals without a warrant. Drones can be used to track individuals just as a GPS can be used and this is seen as an invasion of privacy. Further they can be used to fly near a persons window and see into their home. There are many other ways drone technology can be abused by infringing on civilians privacy rights and for that reason there should be a law requiring a search warrant to make sure those rights are protected.
ReplyDelete