Reply With Quote
Cons utionally, halal?
NYPD surveilled whole mosques and Muslim individuals for 14 years and got bupkis.
Was that worth it?
Cons utionally, halal?
That's not what I'm talking about. I've already said they made a mistake starting the evaluation without going to the council members first. They should have known better than to treat this like it was the same as testing some new type of handcuffs that were donated for evaluation. Beyond that, I think the technology is probably cons utional (assuming it only does what they claim). Courts will decide someday.
if targeted surveillance doesn't work, why should we trust mass surveillance?
That's what they did and that's what I'm talking about.
What they did shouldn't be allowed.
Do you still disagree? We're talking about Baltimore PD and what they did, and not some future hypothetical.
If you're talking about some hypothetical, you can stipulate whatever you want, but you can't do that about the case under discussion.
do you think mass surveillance without democratic oversight is a good idea, and if so, why?
So you don't think that the technology shouldn't be allowed just the way Baltimore PD decided to test it?
Okay
Baltimore PD - bad PD bad...I agree
The Technology - maybe good, maybe cons utional
Neither of those cases involved automated surveillance systems, which is a point I noted before. Much like attaching a GPS tracker is not the same as a police car following a person around, even if the motive is the same in both instances.
There are arguably differences between particular, individual cases and a systematic dragnet. Even if, in arguendo, it's ultimately legal, what's alarming in this particular case is the complete lack of oversight. Even in the GPS tracker case there was a (misused) warrant involved. There's a reason why such warrants are needed, it's part of the whole oversight thing.
I don't think the council members matter here. If you're potentially trampling on someone's rights, you need a court order. A council can't override anybody's cons utional rights.
I'm criticizing what they did, not what they used, though I'd be interested to hear your argument for a legitimate use, just so I could see what you think it would look like.
We therefore regard the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home"—what our cases call the curtilage—as "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." ... That principle has ancient and durable roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is "as old as the common law," ... so too is the iden y of home and what Blackstone called the "curtilage or homestall," for the "house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants." ... This area around the home is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically," and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened."good point, didn't remember that part
Florida v. Jardines (2013)
There's different prongs to determine what a curtilage really is. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage.
It would be so much cheaper to put cameras on the streets. Those high resolution cameras are not cheap, then there is the cost of flying.
This is the key here. We accept in public, we are not in a private environment. However, these cameras see beyond normal public view.
you can't see a wiretap either, but you need a warrant for that. what's the difference?
Well I’m not going to pretend to be a cons utional scholar but I assume this district judge knows what he’s talking about...
So if all this plane does is the same thing police in helicopters can do then that can be viewed as a subs ute for ordinary surveillance.Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a subs ute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.
http://www.cnet.com/news/court-oks-w...lance-cameras/
It hasn't been deemed uncons utional by the courts. The courts don't rule on things before they've been done.
Assuming it works well in real time...
911 call of a shooting at Bob's liquor store, some dude zooms in on the liquor store and see 2 people jump in a white car and speed away, dude tells patrol car possible suspects are head west on xyz street, officer heads off in pursuit, then dude tells officer they just pulled into the garage at 123 whatever street, officer goes to 123 whatever street. Is that not legitimate use and the same as what a police helicopter might do.
Or the next day they can look at the recording and go to 123 whatever street. Police can already review traffic cams etc. and pursue the leads.
Or how about frantic Ma & Pa call 911 and say poor little Betsy just got snatched from the front yard by an evil black man, put up an Amber Alert! So dude looks at the recording an sees Betsy was never in the yard at the time they said. So he backs up the recording and sees that 4 hours earlier Ma & Pa lugged some bags to the driveway, tossed them in the trunk, then drove to a nearby pond and tossed them in the pond. So dude tells officers who go to the pond and find poor chopped up Betsy neatly stuck in the bags. Ma & Pa get busted. Were Ma & Pa's rights violated because their driveway was private property and police aren't allowed to look down upon it with a camera?
What does the abuse & violation of privacy look like to you in this case?
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 09-07-2016 at 02:51 AM.
That case involves police actually going onto private property without a warrant, not just looking at private property from a distance.
Do you have any morals?
That's pretty ing funny coming from the flaglot stalker.
For those that can't sleep at night
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5563939.html
Wow.
You just moved into the pathetic zone. That was how many years ago? And people take to wrong, and love to twist.
We disagree on some things, but never in my life, did I think you were as pathetic as Fuzzy et. al.
Might have been a cheap shot, but accusing someone of not having any morals just because you disagree on a police policy was in the same ballpark.
The SCOTUS has overturned previous lower-courts decisions on this matter. The cases I've quoted are actually pretty recent (Jardines is such a case, dated post that one).
There's multiple prongs, such as distance, etc, that need to be taken into account in order to decide what's a curtilage of a house. What's not in doubt is that such curtilage is protected by the 4th.
But the point is that the only en y that's going to determine whether it's cons utionally sound or not is a court of law. All sorts of legislative bodies write uncons utional laws that eventually are struck down. The lack of a court decision on cons utionality doesn't make things automatically cons utional. Plenty of laws survive for a time until they're struck down. They're not uncons utional the moment the court ruled, they were uncons utional from the start.
Immaterial to the actual decision: Curtilage, that is, an area surrounding the property is protected by the 4th amendment and the citizens enjoy an expectation of privacy in it. How far that extends, etc, is a different matter, but I suspect it's difficult for an aerial wide-angle camera to make the decision of what's protected or not.
You're defending Snakeboy?
OK...
His whole thing was not caring about what amounts to spying.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
