• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

F.B.I. says it doesn't need warrant to use drones

I believed they used infrared to find that Boston terrorist under a boat in a backyard.

Indeed. Already in use, I'm sure they use every spectrum available to them to peer into places they shouldn't be.
 
FBI says it doesn't need warrant to use drones - Washington Times

Though Senator Paul is ostracisized for his contrarian views, we, as a people need more members of the Congress and Senate to stick their heads up and raise their voices for us and the Constitution, and not just shimmy along being a Yes Man to the system.

Drones in America is a terrible idea. We don't need 20,000 of them flying around in a decade or two, let alone, being operated by the government and police in our skies. Vote 'no' if you're ever given the chance about drones.

I don't agree with the Obama drone program in other countries, some ostensibly allies of America, where drones are used to murder people and often innocent bystanders.

That said, this is entirely different and I would agree that a warrant should not be necessary. It's not necessary for the police to have a warrant for every household in a jurisdiction when they send up a police helicopter to survey the area. Why should a drone be different? I'm quite sure, however, that if they noticed you had pot plants growing in your backyard they'd have to get a warrant before entering the property.

People seem to revel in the ability to use their smartphones to film or take pics of everybody they see on the street doing whatever, and especially if they catch the police in some action, and posting it up on youtube or whatever for the world to see. Personally, I no longer have any expectation of privacy of my person when I'm out on the street or anywhere not surrounded by four walls and a roof. Since I'm not doing anything illegal, I'd much rather a drone pass by than a nosy neighbor with a smartphone pointed over the fence.
 
you should probably buff up on a little case law and not rely on that. you might be surprised at what you find is not considered private.

I have always seen "reasonable expectation of privacy" used for determining privacy rights. That should apply to outdoors away from public view. I know that they have already allowed exceptions for aerial surveillance finding pot plants (for example). I have never heard of anyone being busted for acts spotted from the air that would require flying very low or using extreme magnification to detect. Have you?
 
I have always seen "reasonable expectation of privacy" used for determining privacy rights. That should apply to outdoors away from public view. I know that they have already allowed exceptions for aerial surveillance finding pot plants (for example). I have never heard of anyone being busted for acts spotted from the air that would require flying very low or using extreme magnification to detect. Have you?
santa.jpg
He knows if you are sleeping,
He knows if your awake.
he knows if you've been bad or good
You better be good for goodness sake...:lamo
 
And they get in a whole lot of trouble for doing so without a warrant.

Look, they're probably correct, under current law, and since we've been too damn lazy to set a privacy amendment to the Constitution, they don't need a warrant. But they should and we should make it so they should.

The constitution already establishes a clear right to privacy. Unfortunately, the courts have been very inconsistent in applying it, but they did apply it in Row v. Wade and Lawrence, among other cases. Since they have been so inconsistent, and the general trend is to erode our privacy, I support a constitutional amendment for privacy. Enacting amendments on the state level will probably be more practical. California already has explicit privacy protection in its constitution.
 
I have no problem with drones equipped with STANDARD REGULAR camera's. But when they start using specialized equipment without warrants, thats a whole 'nother ball game. That specialized equipment is being used to look at things that the normal eye cannot. IE it is looking beyond what can normally be seen. Those things need a requirement of a warrant as it is searching beyond what is publicly available.
 
The constitution already establishes a clear right to privacy. Unfortunately, the courts have been very inconsistent in applying it, but they did apply it in Row v. Wade and Lawrence, among other cases. Since they have been so inconsistent, and the general trend is to erode our privacy, I support a constitutional amendment for privacy. Enacting amendments on the state level will probably be more practical. California already has explicit privacy protection in its constitution.

I disagree entirely. The fourth does not protect privacy, it simply requires the government to have a warrant in order to use your papers against you in court. Yes, yes, I know the courts, even the SCOTUS, have said there's nothing to see here, move along. But we need real constitutional privacy rights. Otherwise, it's always going to revolve around whatever legislation passes muster that year.
 
I have always seen "reasonable expectation of privacy" used for determining privacy rights. That should apply to outdoors away from public view. I know that they have already allowed exceptions for aerial surveillance finding pot plants (for example). I have never heard of anyone being busted for acts spotted from the air that would require flying very low or using extreme magnification to detect. Have you?

Back a long time ago when i studied this sort of case law it seems they pretty much need some sort of physical barrier because even when cops walked around private property they were able to use plain sight rules. I am pretty sure if it is visible while out in public you are screwed. The places where you actually have privacy in a legally protected sense are very small.
 
Then I guess I don't need permission to HUNT them. 8)
 
I disagree entirely. The fourth does not protect privacy, it simply requires the government to have a warrant in order to use your papers against you in court. Yes, yes, I know the courts, even the SCOTUS, have said there's nothing to see here, move along. But we need real constitutional privacy rights. Otherwise, it's always going to revolve around whatever legislation passes muster that year.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall ...

"Be secure" means you have a right to be protected from searches and seizures without probable cause (case law) or warrant. "Persons" means your body and the clothes you are wearing, "effects" means possessions or property. If the government can not search your body and clothes, your home, your papers or your possessions without probable cause or a warrant, then you have a right to privacy. I don't think that is ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall ...

"Be secure" means you have a right to be protected from searches and seizures without probable cause (case law) or warrant. "Persons" means your body and the clothes you are wearing, "effects" means possessions or property. If the government can not search your body and clothes, your home, your papers or your possessions without probable cause or a warrant, they you have a right to privacy. I don't think that is ambiguous.

The 4th is the privacy rights, explicitly stated. Papers and effects includes digital information, any record relating to me, service contract, etc. What needs to be done is that the 4th needs to be brought back to life and respected.
 
Back a long time ago when i studied this sort of case law it seems they pretty much need some sort of physical barrier because even when cops walked around private property they were able to use plain sight rules. I am pretty sure if it is visible while out in public you are screwed. The places where you actually have privacy in a legally protected sense are very small.

Since I said "away from public view" I think we mean the same thing.
 
Does a cop need a warrant to walk around and look at things.
Yes, if it requires entering private property without permission.

That was a dodge. Entering private property is entirely different than surveiling a public place

A drone flying at legal height for manned aircraft is probably a legal search.

A drone flying at a lower level (than a manned aircraft can) and peeping in windows and otherwise seeing things that can not be seen by a manned aircraft or from the street should require a warrant.

In addition to the privacy issue, there will also be noise, safety and other nuisance issues if drones proliferate. We may even see corporate drones following you from the store to your home to spy on your consumption and lifestyle for marketing purposes if we don't limit their use severely.

AFAIK the height the drone is flying at doesn't raise any legal issues

And if they make a lot of noise, that would kind of defeat the purpose, no?
 
...AFAIK the height the drone is flying at doesn't raise any legal issues...

The height should matter if the drone can do things, such as look through windows, that a manned aircraft can't do.
 
Not sure why drones would be any different than any other type of camera in a public place.
 
Well, some delusional people think that a Stasi is antithesis to freedom...

But how else are we supposed to protect our freedom if we don't abolish freedom??

That has nothing to do with Rand Paul seemingly having no idea what the laws are.
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall ...

"Be secure" means you have a right to be protected from searches and seizures without probable cause (case law) or warrant. "Persons" means your body and the clothes you are wearing, "effects" means possessions or property. If the government can not search your body and clothes, your home, your papers or your possessions without probable cause or a warrant, then you have a right to privacy. I don't think that is ambiguous.

You're ignoring the sentence as a whole and leaving out the gemaine "against unreasonable searches and seizures". This is NOT privacy but a restriction on what the governement can use against you in court.
 
You're ignoring the sentence as a whole and leaving out the gemaine "against unreasonable searches and seizures". This is NOT privacy but a restriction on what the government can use against you in court.

As I mentioned, unreasonable searches and seizures means without probable cause or a warrant. Although this amendment has been used to prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, there is nothing in the language that limits the scope of the amendment to court room evidence. The only thing lacking is a federal law implementing enforcement measures (that I know of). However, cops have been disciplined, and police departments successfully sued, due to their unreasonable searches and seizures, even when the seized evidence was not used in court.

The fourth amendment defines a right to privacy from government snooping as clearly as possible without actually using the word privacy. Most court decisions agree with my understanding of the fourth amendment.
 
As I mentioned, unreasonable searches and seizures means without probable cause or a warrant. Although this amendment has been used to prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, there is nothing in the language that limits the scope of the amendment to court room evidence. The only thing lacking is a federal law implementing enforcement measures (that I know of). However, cops have been disciplined, and police departments successfully sued, due to their unreasonable searches and seizures, even when the seized evidence was not used in court.

The fourth amendment defines a right to privacy from government snooping as clearly as possible without actually using the word privacy. Most court decisions agree with my understanding of the fourth amendment.

As stipulated, the courts do agree with your take. However, this does not make a privacy right, just restrains government from searching for some information in some ways without a warrant. Relying upon the 4th for privacy means we're restricted to the privacy the courts think the 4th confers at the time of their decision. That's not good enough.

Further, by not doing it the right way (through amendment), we further allow the court to travel the broken road it's been on - interpretting in new language to the Constitution.
 
What's surprising about liberals feeling indifferent toward government opening the door to more invasion of privacy?

Why should a little thing like the government having drones that can record your every movement and fly wherever they want be of concern?

After all, the government will take care of you and keep you safe from those who would want to harm you. Remember President Bush and the "Patriot Act?" Remember how liberals loved him for that?

Now fast forward to 2013 and the government's escalation of invasion of privacy. The little IRS and NSA violations of privacy, and the justice department seizing AP phone records? On top of that what's the big deal about a little thing like drones operating in American air space and recording anything wherever and whenever they want?

But that's OK because it's being conducted by a kinder, gentler government.

After all, the government is your friend. The government will take care of you either because you are incapable of taking care of yourself, or because you have more than others and you will gladly allow the government to redistribute your income to take care of those who have less than you. Even to those who are not US citizens! See what a kinder government we've elected.

Obviously the government knows better than you about what's good for you. So a little loss of privacy and some surrendering of rights to keep us all safe isn't such a bad think now is it? After all, the government is looking out for you.
:allhail
 
Last edited:
This liberal doesn't like it, which is why I am a long time ACLU member. They have consistently fought for privacy and civil rights for a long time.
 
This liberal doesn't like it, which is why I am a long time ACLU member. They have consistently fought for privacy and civil rights for a long time.

No one should be comfortable with drones flying around in America.

They may start out unarmed but do you trust the police and government enough to NOT arm drones over American skies? Is that not the natural progression?
 
Back
Top Bottom