I think what kennyb is trying to argue is that the US security aparatus (including police agencies) is in recent times not exactly known for respecting civil rights and following the letter AND spirit of the law (NDA, NSL, secret FISA-courts). If there is an option to weasel through a civil right protection they’re going to use it.
A really high-tech military-grade 20-foot-long drone probably does require a lot of training to operate. And yes, in that case, if the police don’t have a warrant they can explain that the operator had been hired to monitor traffic speeds on the nearby highway that afternoon and had accidentally left the marijuana-leaf-color-detector function of the camera activated, so it triggered when it went by the suspect’s yard.
A 2-foot-long hobbyist-grade Arduino-powered radio-control quadcopter with a camera on it requires a hobbyist to operate it; if the police don’t know any teenagers who are willing to train them, they can ask the clerk at Radio Shack or Toys-R-Us how to do it, and then practice a bit.
That’s not what this page is about.
The specific question being asked on this thread (check the title - my bold) is “Should cops have to get a warrant before spying on you with a drone?”
I already wrote above that forces are already acquiring drones, so we do need “best practice” rules in place. That’s what AB-1327 is, it gives an outline for any “law enforcement agency” operating within California on how and when they can use a drone. Existing laws already cover privacy in areas of expected privacy. This bill expands the concept, requiring public notification of the intent to include drone use in their practices, and also outlines all times when a law enforcement agency may use a drone without a warrant (none include observation of criminal activity).
Pretty much anyone reading here on BB is already well aware of differences between police-level and federal level observation of the population sans warrant, so they should already know that discussing them as one is futile. (The FBI is not your local sheriff.)
Did you go read his three examples (from 1978 at the latest)? (I did.) None were related to the issue, and the one he claimed dealt with a “search warrant being found invalid ex post facto on the grounds that it was based merely on the fervid imaginings of a policeman” didn’t even involve a warranted search.
EDIT: So, I’m going to try to make this clear, in case I didn’t already (twice)…
I support AB-1327, but the main goal of the bill is not to simply prevent spying in private locations. The bill is a generalized “best practice” bill outlining how law enforcement agencies will be allowed to use their new toys.
Actually, the story that San Jose PD is offering is that they purchased a drone to assist the bomb squad:
"This UAV will enable public safety bomb squads throughout the Bay Area to conduct quick and accurate threat assessments, and will help bomb squads clear a suspected hazardous area of explosives or hazardous materials in a remote, safe, timely, and effective manner,” reads the same May 2014 program description.
They also claimed that 12 officers would be trained in use:
The May 2014 memo claims, that there is “virtually no down time in training to fly this UAV as it has multiple presets which are programmed into the hard drive." The SJPD response indicates that the department has not conducted any trainings on operating the hexacopter, although the grant indicates that a minimum of 12 personnel are to be trained on its use.
Actually, the legislation pertains to any “public agency” though there are a ton of exceptions that allow public agencies to use drones if use furthers their core mission.
The text of bill:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1327
At a meta level this is a fascinating inflection point for technology. My paternal grandfather was an officer that flew planes to bust marijuana farms in the early eighties, so aerial surveillance has been happening for quite awhile. But it was expensive, hard, and the reward (the bust) had to be worth the task.
While operating a remote flying vehicle is far from point and click 100% of the time, the skill to operate–and the associated risk–is so much lower that average people are taking notice. With the exception of the potential abuse, this is a great time to live in.
And yes, let’s get some best practices or legal frameworks in place. The law can’t just “wing it” 
1 Like
Actually, I read the bill before I wrote what I did.
Parts of it are written to specifically deal with law enforcement agencies, and parts are written to deal with any public agency. The reason why they wrote it for public agencies was in case a law enforcement agency contracted the use of a drone. A public agency wouldn’t be getting a warrant anyway.
Examples:
- (a) A public agency shall not use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, except as provided in this title. This title shall apply to all public and private entities when contracting with a public agency for the use of an unmanned aircraft system.
(b) A law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system if it has obtained a warrant based on probable cause pursuant to this code.
1 Like
That right there is worth the price of admission.
–edit–
I see statutes like that as similar to a defense against, “do it on the internet” patents. It just seems so logical that by adding “drone” doesn’t mean you can bypass warrants, and adding “internet” doesn’t mean you can patent something that has existed for decades.
However, since it is the case that not everyone thinks like me, explicitly calling things out like this makes sense.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
