ACLU Accuses California Local Government's Drones of 'Runaway Spying Operation' (sfgate.com) 24
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:1)
Re:Confused? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Confused? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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:1, Offtopic)
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?
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:3)
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 disr
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:3)
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:2)
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: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]