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.
Should Congress prohibit the use of drones by federal law enforcement for surveillance purposes without first obtaining a search warrant?
Yes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do say this perhaps uneducated. I feel that drones, especially small personal drones, are a thing of our time that are still being "figured out" by the general public. I don't know the full extent of how drones can be used. I'm sure that stuff like video and audio recording are easy, but what else could one do with a souped up drone?
I'm mostly just curious if there's any precedent that's been set with similar technology. Do we have any sort of "high altitude cameras" or video technology? Or is this (as I would guess) a first of a kind thing? If we do have something similar, I feel like deferring to that ruling could be helpful.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the ASU news article regarding drones, the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Causby ruled that landowners own “at least as much of the space above the ground as (they) can occupy or use in connection with the land.” Therefore, I believe that federal law enforcement flying a drone below a certain height (I'm not sure about an exact number, that would have to be deliberated) above someone's land constitutes an unreasonable search. However, this might get complicated, as restrictions will probably vary depending on the drone being used.
No
ReplyDeleteAs someone who comes from a family of pilots we typically describe the FAA as a massive nuisance. However, there is reasoning in their ruling. Once again legislation is very slow compared to the advancement of technology. If there is no regulation over the use of surveillance helicopters for speeding then there should be none for drones. The only exception is perhaps the altitude over which a drone is flying. Before the FAA regulates drones they must regulate all airborne surveillance systems used by law enforcement. The main reasoning is that drones ease of use can create privacy concerns. In so far, there has been no overt danger to privacy. Trying to get legislation to move fast is akin to trying to turn gravity off. It is impossible. If drones become a major privacy issue in the future then perhaps a warrant should be required.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteWhile one might argue that anything visible from the outside shouldn't require a warrant (for example a helicopter or plane can see a lot without needing a warrant), I think drones should since they allow for more discrete and controlled surveillance. If there was no federal regulation, I don't see how anyone could reasonably protect themselves from drone surveillance which I believe falls under a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think this should be done by Congress, not the FAA since it has to do with privacy more than it has to do with flying or airspace.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteCongress should prohibit the use of drones by federal law enforcement for surveillance purposes without first obtaining a warrant. As mentioned by Shreya, although the exact measurements have not been decided yet, the ASU article discussed a case determining that “landowners own the space above their properties they can use for occupancy or any other reasons connecting to the land”. With that being said, if a drone flown by federal law enforcement were to interfere with that protected space, that would violate the landowner(s)’ rights. As a side note, I do believe there should be a more descriptive interpretation of that ruling, which would hopefully provide definitions to specific terms. This would benefit both the public and law enforcement, as there would not be as much confusion as to which areas of space belong to who. However, there is a strong argument for federal, criminal cases/investigations that would override this idea.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteWhile most FAA regulations about drones are focused on short-term safety (e.g. banning flying near airports and wildfires), there are also restrictions on flying drones near military bases for security reasons, which seems to mean that having a drone in the air above a non-public space can be treated as intruding into that space on a private citizen's part. As I see it, the same should apply to government operated drones flying over private property, so this should be treated as intruding into the property and should require a warrant.
There's also precedent for treating drones differently from satellite or high altitude photography, as Hill AFB, for example, is visible on satellite view in Google Maps.
No.
ReplyDeleteAs a tool used to investigate and obtain a different point of view, I think that the use of drones doesn't meet the expectations for needing to acquire a warrant. For instance, drone usage plays a key role in searching for missing persons, clearing buildings in hostage situations, and monitoring crowds. The varying levels of drone usage are all essential to law enforcement for varying reasons, hence I think requiring a warrant for all types of situations will hinder their efficiency overall. Since they are another variable of technology that needs proper training before use, I feel that the proper personnel in charge of these tools will use them for proper regulation of surveillance.
Congress should require a warrant using the same justifications as existing warrants. For example, some degree of surveillance is allowed in a public space without a warrant. If law enforcement were to use drones to investigate or search private property, however, a judicial warrant should be required. Furthermore, the drones should not be used for mass surveillance, nor should mass surveillance be legal for law enforcement purposes.
ReplyDelete