ACLU Accuses California Local Government's Drones of 'Runaway Spying Operation' (sfgate.com) 57
An anonymous reader shared this report from SFGate about a lawsuit alleging a "warrantless drone surveillance program" that's "trampling residents' right to privacy":
Sonoma County has been accused of deploying hundreds of drone flights over residents in a "runaway spying operation"... according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Bay county of Sonoma initially started the 6-year-old drone program to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but the lawsuit alleges that officials have since turned it into a widespread program to catch unrelated code violations at residential properties and levy millions of dollars in fines. The program has captured 5,600 images during more than 700 flights, the lawsuit said...
Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a Wednesday news release that the county "has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media...." The lawsuit says the county employees used the drones to spy on private homes without first receiving a warrant, including photographing private areas like hot tubs and outdoor baths, and through curtainless windows.
One plaintiff "said the county secretly used the drone program to photograph her Sonoma County horse stable and issue code violations," according to the article. She only discovered the use of the drones after a county employee mentioned they had photos of her property, according to the lawsuit. She then filed a public records request for the images, which left her "stunned" after seeing that the county employees were monitoring her private property including photographing her outdoor bathtub and shower, the lawsuit said.
Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a Wednesday news release that the county "has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media...." The lawsuit says the county employees used the drones to spy on private homes without first receiving a warrant, including photographing private areas like hot tubs and outdoor baths, and through curtainless windows.
One plaintiff "said the county secretly used the drone program to photograph her Sonoma County horse stable and issue code violations," according to the article. She only discovered the use of the drones after a county employee mentioned they had photos of her property, according to the lawsuit. She then filed a public records request for the images, which left her "stunned" after seeing that the county employees were monitoring her private property including photographing her outdoor bathtub and shower, the lawsuit said.
Confused? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Confused? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're an American. That poster is likely not.
Or you're unaware of the concept of words meaning different things depending on locale...
Re:Confused? (Score:5, Insightful)
They put pride stickers and BLM stickers on the boot so that people like you will lick it extra clean.
People that are homosexual and those that object to being killed due to their skin color tend to be liberal progressives, not the type of people that support or desire right wing authoritarianism and surveillance states. Fascism is a right wing ideology that is xenophobic, homophobic and racist. Don't take my word for it, use a dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...That is my point, I can see how it would be misconstrued as "there is a problem on the left" but the problem is when those on the left act like conservatives and give into empty appeals to authority
That is a part of the problem that folks in the present political mix too often miss. Sonoma County is certainly not a hotbed of Conservatism. All forms of government By The People, even those disguised as For The People, eventually grow tired of the pesky freedoms their citizens have that make their jobs even a little bit more difficult.
It may not be the job of those in power to nibble away at your personal freedoms, it is their tendency. If you'd like to see these uniquely 20th Century protections for th
Re: (Score:2)
People that are homosexual and those that object to being killed due to their skin color tend to be liberal progressives
Yes, but there's lots and lots of counterexamples, especially there are a lot of conservative brown people. Mexicans (and many other Latin Americans) have historically tended to vote conservative because so many of them are Catholic. There's also no guarantee that they are not racist against other brown people. Just this morning I was looking at a post on feceboot about cleaning up a BLM street mural in Santa Cruz which someone did a burnout on. Around a third of the haha reaccs were from people with hispan
Re:Confused? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the modern equivalent of "You can hear a cellphone conversation from down the street so why can't the NSA collect all conversations?" They put pride stickers and BLM stickers on the boot so that people like you will lick it extra clean.
Oh, FFS. Yet another right-wing populist Bakunin strikes again—lobbing cultural Molotovs into every conversation, not because he cares where they land, but because fire draws a crowd. Take your anarchist cosplay elsewhere, troll.
You’re not defending privacy. You’re not defending due process. You’re performing a theatrical sneer for the cheap seats, dressing up contempt as insight. You saw someone ask a basic constitutional question about aerial surveillance and answered with a parody of yourself: NSA! Bootlickers! Pride flags on jackboots! It’s all so conveniently interchangeable, isn’t it?
Here’s what actual civil libertarians care about: the means of government intrusion, the legal thresholds for surveillance, and the technological scaling of state power. The Sonoma case is about warrantless drone surveillance of homes at low altitude, using zoom lenses capable of peering through windows and fences. That’s qualitatively different than taking pictures from the street. It's also exactly the kind of mission creep that the California Constitution—yes, we have one—explicitly guards against.
But none of that matters to you, because you're not here to argue law or liberty. You're here to moralize with napalm, to call everyone who doesn’t speak in your register a dupe or a stooge. Ironically, that's the same authoritarian impulse you claim to hate—just with better memes.
Try making a civil liberties argument next time. Or don’t. Just don’t pretend your firestarter cosplay is a substitute for principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep your completely irrelevant culture war nonsense to wherever you're from. We have enough assholes in the US as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Had to laugh at that one. Mean, so mean.
Re: (Score:3)
For that matter you can also take photos from an airplane, helicopter, or satellite. So where's the outrage there?
There is no indication that anyone's "privacy" was violated beyond their desire to keep their code violations hidden from regulators. You can see the image in the SFGate article that the woman is suing over. You'd be hard pressed to spot a human figure in that photo, but you can def
Re: (Score:2)
There is no indication that anyone's "privacy" was violated beyond their desire to keep their code violations hidden from regulators.
The 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So are you advocating for the repeal of all the bill off rights, or just this one?
Gov allowed aerial images for legit purposes (Score:2)
Re: Gov allowed aerial images for legit purposes (Score:3)
But from the cited law I understand that it must be done under a warrant, which is not the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Probable cause, not indiscriminate assumption of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pointing out that aerial photography of private property is absolutely permitted (and legal) under specific circumstances. I can go to Google Maps right now and see which of my neighbors have swimming pools and decks. So where was the ACLU back when Google started doing this? Clearly the 4th Amendment is not preventing Google, Apple, or anyone else from taking aerial photos.
The gist of these complaints is "I spotted
the issue is (Score:1)
Re: the issue is (Score:1)
Yes, the idea put forward by the Supreme Court in Florida vs Riley is that it must be visible from the street with the naked eye or from a plane above 400 feet. However, the recent ruling in the Michigan Supreme Court pointed out that the US Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the exclusionary rule applies only in criminal cases, not civil cases. https://law.justia.com/cases/m... [justia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you wonder when a building code violation changes from a 'civil' to 'criminal' case?
I do not, for the record. If the government fines you, it is a criminal sanction. They may argue that to avoid the complexities of criminal justice, but they are wrong. And if they can imprison you, they lodged a criminal complaint, no matter what they called it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's either public airspace or not. 100 feet above your house is not public airspace. All the city had to do was fly at a higher altitude with a licensed pilot. They can see anything they want (unpermitted additions, etc.) with a 4K camera. There's no reason we need to make a special rule that zoning inspectors can fly drones all around your property looking for things they don't like. "Reasonable altitudes" is just you making shit up, the supreme court has never said that.
To the person who said the supreme
Re:Confused? (Score:5, Insightful)
you don't see the difference between the government surveilling you/your property vs someone passing on the street and taking a photo? Especially if they don't have a signed warrant.
Traditionally, for the government to surveil you... they need a warrant. You might want to see the constitution... you are constitutionally protected from this, and are supposed to have privacy.
This program was allowed with the express purpose of capturing weed grow ops... anything outside that scope... should have been disregarded unless a judge signed off on it in advance. That's how LEGAL surveillance works... you need a warrant, and you can't get a warrant for one thing.. and expand it to do what ever the hell you want to whom ever you want. In this case, it sounds like there was no warrant... it was just widescale surveillance by the county.
I really find it strange how people in the states are fine with these things while also purporting to be "free"... they managed to get a surveillance state worse than the Chinese, with less oversight, defanged judiciary to protect them, and are okay with defending the surveillance state. (i know this is a generalization... but just 20 to 30 years ago... a single generation ago... the people would have seen this for what it is and burned the state down... really sad to see what is happening...)
You don't get to pick and choose who gets privacy and when... it's absolute and can't be impeded on without a warrant.... Just mind boggling the amount of people thinking this is okay... let's take this to a not so extreme- if they put 360 cameras everywhere, and microphones in all public spaces, then also intercepted all communications in the public air... or on telecom lines traveling over public land... it's okay... because it's in the public space... you can only have an expectation of privacy if you go into your underground bunker and stay silent. The fucken lunacy... and those saying that they were violating codes, so it's okay... any given day, you are likely breaking some law... imagine going about your day and cops busting in and arresting you because you broke some mundane law like eating fried chicken with a utensil at your home cook out in Gainesville County, Georgia. (yes, it's illegal to eat fried chicken using anything other than your hands) There are many laws you don't know exist that you are likely breaking and could be arrested for. Now piss off the wrong person, or have an over zealous person in charge...
Where do you draw a fucken line and say no more?.. because the US constitution did it... and apparently it doesn't matter to these people... I bet if the county said you can't have any guns, and impeded the 2nd amendment... they'd be in a mighty uproar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If Americans cared about it they shouldn't have voted for authoritarianism. He told us all before we voted exactly what to expect.
"Plain View Exception" (Score:2)
you don't see the difference between the government surveilling you/your property vs someone passing on the street and taking a photo? Especially if they don't have a signed warrant. Traditionally, for the government to surveil you... they need a warrant.
There is a "plain view" exception whenever an officer is at a place they are entitled to be. A helicopter at 1,000 feet may be one of those places, with binocular handy. Seems a small leap from that to a drone at a drone-appropriate altitude. Also, the courts consider a legitimate purpose to be a factor when determining if privacy was violated from an aerial view. Code enforcement would seem a legitimate purpose. I guess that's part of "place they are entitled to be".
Re: (Score:1)
The point you missed is that is California a very leftist state. Even more so around San Francisco. They want the All-Glorious State hovering over them. They think that keeps them safe for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't see the difference between the government surveilling you/your property vs someone passing on the street and taking a photo?
There is a logical disconnect when the police aren't allowed to do something anyone else can. Pretend there's not if it makes you feel better, but it's still a disconnect.
Traditionally, for the government to surveil you... they need a warrant.
Not when you're in a public place, or from a public place.
You might want to see the constitution...
And you might take a look at the "plain view rule." [cornell.edu] Real life is far more complicated than your fantasy world where you can get away with whatever crime you want even when you're even dumber than the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
I really find it strange how people in the states are fine with these things while also purporting to be "free"... they managed to get a surveillance state worse than the Chinese, with less oversight, defanged judiciary to protect them, and are okay with defending the surveillance state
Of course the people of Sonoma County didn't choose to be spied on by drones and are generally bothered by this happening. Now that we know it's happening it will likely be stopped once local government gets called to heel. I know all this because I live here.
It's funny you making these big dramatic claims when other first world nations spy on their people far more than us. You can't do a thing in public in the UK for instance without being filmed doing it. We're not doing great on this count either but we'
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it depends on your loaclity.
Basically where I live we have a "expectation of privacy" rule. That limits scopes of laws.
Like if you are naked in a fenced in area with no expected visibility outside he area you cannot be prosecuted for public indicency, but if you do that in your open front yard you will be..
Same applies to many other things too where a place with expectation of privacy has special protections for things like photographing, where you need permission in such, but not in places without an
why not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because those satellite pics are often very off of date
If you use google maps, then they will be out of date. That's why you pay for a satellite broker.
Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Commercial satellite photos are of insufficient resolution for this sort of use.
The high-quality overheads on Google Maps and others are actually taken by camera-equipped light aircraft, and the only differences between that and using a drone are:
Altitude.
Size & quality of camera.
Where the pilot sits.
The obvious solution is for the county to be completely open about what they're doing, and send out something like:
Dear Homeowner,
As part of our commitment to serving our community, we will be conducting ariel analysis of your neighbourhood on [day] between [hour] and [hour].
We recommend that you avoid being naked in open view of the sky at this time.
If you would like your own copy of the resultant overhead imagery of your property, free of charge, these will be available after [date] from [blah].
Regards,
Re: (Score:1)
Dear Homeowner,
As part of our commitment to serving our community, we will be visiting your home on [day] between [hour] and [hour].
If you don't like that, we recommend that you don't stay home during our visit.
If you would like your own copy of the resultant 3D scan of your interior, free of charge, these will be available after [date] from [blah].
Regards,
P.S. You don't have anything to hide, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
We recommend that you avoid being naked in open view of the sky at this time.
Oh, that's going to backfire bigly.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just get the data from a satellite broker?
Used to work for a State government that used satellite brokers to get pictures of areas that were hours old. This was done for infrastructure planning and expansion and did not have "side look" capabilities like drones do. EG: a satellite can't look into your window, but a drone can. Also, Satellites have "iris control" so that the NSA or NRO can stop US based satellites from photographing areas they don't want photographed. Drones have restrictions but not the same. Drones are cheap and quick, satalite c
Supreme Court has ruled multiple time: civil actio (Score:2)
Yes, the idea put forward by the Supreme Court in Florida vs Riley is that it must be visible from the street with the naked eye or from a plane above 400 feet. However, the recent ruling in the Michigan Supreme Court pointed out that the US Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the exclusionary rule applies only in criminal cases, not civil cases. https://law.justia.com/cases/m... [justia.com]
Standards for spying are looming (Score:2)
Satellite imaging has become a fact of life, meaning that it's accepted that you could be photographed from space at any moment when you are outside. Given the proliferation of UAVs ("drones") that have photographic capabilities, it seems only natural that we're approaching a point where standards for what constitutes spying are going to be defined. I'm fairly certain this means photographing from a certain distance. However, this isn't entirely helpful if there isn't also a maximum optical resolution.
For w
DUI checkpoints (Score:1)
Constitutional law has been botched in this country for some time in my view, but the point of the fourth amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights was the idea that there would not be dragnets.
That is, if police have probable cause regarding a specific individual, they can investigate, but they cannot investigate an entire neighborhood or city just because laws are being broken. The Constitution gives a nod to the idea that if a behavior does not cause noticeable problems, it should probably be ignor