Drones, Dogs and the Future of Privacy 106
An anonymous reader writes "Stanford's Ryan Calo has previously told us that 'that there is very little in American privacy law that would prohibit drone surveillance within our borders.' But will UAVs not only be legally permitted to monitor us in public, but also be used to 'peer' into homes with high-tech thermal and chemical sensors and alert police to the presence of illicit substances or other suspicious activity? Calo writes in Wired about a pending Supreme Court case, Florida v. Jardines, which will determine 'whether the police need a warrant before a dog can sniff your house' like they already do to luggage at airports. According to Calo, if the Court approves of these searches, it's a small leap to extend that same logic to the use of drones, allowing them 'to roam a neighborhood in search of invisible infractions such as indoor marijuana.' He concludes: 'The wrong decision in Jardines makes this and similar surveillance scenarios uncomfortably plausible.'"
It's already been ruled on. (Score:5, Informative)
Cops cannot use thermal imaging to see inside without a warrant. What you saw on Weeds was just a TV show.
The walls of your house create an expectation of privacy, and that privacy is protected by the constitution.
Re:It's already been ruled on. (Score:2, Informative)
http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/1598 Seems you may be mistaken.
Cops cannot use thermal imaging to see inside without a warrant. What you saw on Weeds was just a TV show.
The walls of your house create an expectation of privacy, and that privacy is protected by the constitution.
Re:It's already been ruled on. (Score:5, Informative)
Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative members of the court both then and now, both sided with the majority in Kyllo v. US, which held that thermal imaging of a home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. Scalia even wrote the opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
How about this? (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of sinking billions more into the failed war on drugs so that they can have even more toys, we just end the failed attempt at prohibition, stop looking for a criminal solution, and start treating the problem like the medical / social issue it is.
That's right. Legalize everything. Spend a couple billion to set up treatment centers for addiction, allow pharmacies to distribute safe products appropriately, and take the money out of the hands of criminal organizations and law enforcement entirely.
Before you start with the "think of the children" arguments. Realize that it's easier for your kids to get illegal drugs now than it is for them to get beer or cigarettes. That's how effective the war on drugs has been. And I come from a country bumpkin community. Everything I could have wanted was readily available in my middle school. I didn't even have to get to high school before I knew who to chat up for stuff like that had I been interested. Your kids aren't going to suddenly become junkies because they have access to drugs. They already have that access if they want it. The problem is already there. And for the most part they're not interested unless they have other problems in their lives.
The current solution is grossly ineffective and extraordinarily expensive at the same time. It's time to stop beating a dead horse and move on to a solution that's been proven to work.