I totally believe that a universal (or even regional-scale) persistent drone surveillance program would be something for which specific checks and balances, applied at the level of standard Article III courts (or, for that matter, state courts, since this technology is going to ubiquitous 20 years from now), would be warranted.
The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.
I suspect we are on the same page in regards to the constitutional issues and the problem(s) with this article. I personally find the massive suspension of common sense in our community about these types of issues quite irritating. I just wanted to point out that cost seemed to be used by you as an argument in favor of the use of drones by law enforcement, when according to four Supreme Court justices in certain cases lower cost can make it unconstitutional without first getting a warrant. Neither I or you believe that is the case with drones at this present time, but I think it's important to mention in these conversations that costs do matter (i.e. cheaper is not always better). My purpose here is not to nitpick. It's just that I'd bet that these issues will permeate Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the future and I think people who are part of this "anti-surveillance" camp should know what they're yelling about.
> I just wanted to point out that cost seemed to be used by you as an argument in favor of the use of drones by law enforcement, when according to four Supreme Court justices in certain cases lower cost can make it unconstitutional without first getting a warrant.
The only way I would see it being feasible to forbid government from using drones just because they're cheap, is to forbid it for everyone.
That might not be a bad idea (it's what we did for phone wiretapping), but then we still end up in a situation where the government has more power, as they would then exclusively control the use of public airspace for drones. Cops aren't the only ones who could make productive use of drones (nor is the government in general), so I'm not sure we'd want to make that tradeoff, at least unconditionally.
There's a slight misunderstanding here. It's not that we need to forbid the government from using drones when they are super cheap. Checks and balances are already at work here and are likely to arrive at a reasonable solution. Based on on the opinions of a few of the current Supreme Court, it seems highly likely that the government has to get a warrant to use a drone to follow someone around 24/7.
In my opinion the only thing to be concerned about is Ginsberg being replaced by Thomas/Scalia. If that happens, the way the Supreme Court will come down on this issue is not so clear. It's definitely something to worry about. According to a certain block in Congress, winning two presidential elections still doesn't entitle you to make appointments.
> The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.
Their source is Rand Paul so this is not all that surprising. His 2012 anti-drone bill would have made it so improper use of a drone would exclude the evidence collected by drone, and authorized civil suits against operators of said drones. Sounds good...except it was extremely broad.
Here is an example of drone use that would be covered. An endangered species of bird has nested on a university campus. A bird researcher at the university is using a small drone with camera to periodically observe the nest. His research is partly funded by an NSF grant.
While flying the drone to the nest one evening, the researcher sees a man attempting to rape a woman in a public area of the university, and alerts the police.
This would have been forbidden drone use under Paul's bill unless the researcher had a warrant. The researcher would have been covered because he was partly funded by the Federal government, and that was sufficient to put one under the bill. The evidence stemming from the drone use would be inadmissible and the researcher could be sued by the attempted rapist.
There was an exigent circumstances provision in the bill that provided an exception when swift action was necessary to prevent danger to life. That would at first SEEM to apply to an attempted rape in progress. Alas, the exigent circumstances only applied to drones operated by a "law enforcement party", which the bill defined as authorized by law or funded by the Federal government to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States. A university bird researcher is not a "law enforcement party", and so the exigent circumstances exception does not apply. (Heck, even state and local police would not be law enforcement parties, because they investigate offenses at the state and local level, not offenses against the United States).
Fortunately this bill died quickly. There is a 2013 version. The House version takes out the part about it covering anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government, so would remove my hypothetical biologist from coverage. It would only apply to drones operated by entities acting under the authority of the Federal government.
The Senate version still covers anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government.
The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.