More "safety" from Big Brother - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

AjaxPress · #91 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullshit

And print them at will with no oversight.

Inflation provides a type of indirect oversight.

Back on topic...

I think it's pretty telling that liberals are calling for smaller government under the Bush administration.

At the same time many neocon politicians scream about "just trust us" while at the same time trying to say that the government can't be trusted.

pramjockey · #92 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Examples, please...

The satellites are not limited to images of public property. Thus, they will be taking images of people on private property. Given that there will, at some point, be people on said private property, it is likely that images will be taken of people on private property, without a warrant.

This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

pramjockey · #93 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I swim nude in my backyard pool

/stifles inappropriate comment.

pramjockey · #94 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The reason they are cowed and we are not is because we are armed. If the populations of those nations had a means to resist and rebel, they would. Certainly they do not volunteer for gulags and other heinous neglect and abuse. The US and Ireland similarly obtained their freedom not through force of words (which mostly got people imprisoned, tortured, exiled in semi-slave or slave status to colonies and/or executed) but force of arms. If you want to maintain your No 1 security guarantee against usurpation by tyrants, please keep reminding liberals as I do, if you don't already, to defend the Second Amendment like all the others.

Abuse usually leaks out. Just ask Nixon or Bush. People like you and me are in the government. They are not all cartoonish goosestepping blockheads by any stretch of the imagination. Someone eventually blows the whistle. How do you think we discovered the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's tapes, the Abu Ghraib abuse, the bypassing of the FISA courts, etc.? Someone said--"Hey, this isn't legal and isn't right, and I'm telling a reporter."

The government already has far more dangerous items, such as a huge military and weapons cache. They haven't used those yet to take over the country. Again, as for Bush, he will be gone shortly. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I think you're giving the press way too much credit. I also think that if a clear abuse is about to happen, it should be stopped, instead of waiting for it to actually occur and then waiting 10 years for the lawsuits to get cleared through the judicial system.

This is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, and as such should be stopped immediately.

Steve · #95 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

The satellites are not limited to images of public property. Thus, they will be taking images of people on private property. Given that there will, at some point, be people on said private property, it is likely that images will be taken of people on private property, without a warrant.

This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

No, it's not.

If I walk into my front yard, I have absolutely no expectation of privacy, yet I'm still on private property. Anyone walking down the street can see me. A police officer driving by can see me. Someone down the block can see me.

None of it is a violation of the 4th Amendment...

pramjockey · #96 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

No, it's not.

If I walk into my front yard, I have absolutely no expectation of privacy, yet I'm still on private property. Anyone walking down the street can see me. A police officer driving by can see me. Someone down the block can see me.

None of it is a violation of the 4th Amendment...

Yes, but what if your property is behind a fence? Or, behind a hill? Or the middle of a wooded area? Barring line-of-sight, and an imminent danger to others, or a clear violation of the law, you do have an expectation of privacy, which has been well established in the courts.

Si modo · #97 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

The satellites are not limited to images of public property. Thus, they will be taking images of people on private property. Given that there will, at some point, be people on said private property, it is likely that images will be taken of people on private property, without a warrant.

This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

Even if you own the air rights to your private property, the government (FAA) has at least an easement. I believe, in this case, whether swimming nude on your backyard pool or growing opium poppies, you don't have a complete expectation of privacy.

When aerial photographs are taken of my neighborhood, my 4th Amendment rights have not been violated. If I am growing opium poppies and they use those pictures in a case against me, then my rights probably would be protected. They would have to find other methods of gathering evidence that I am growing opium poppies (if I were, that is to say).

pramjockey · #98 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Even if you own the air rights to your private property, the government (FAA) has at least an easement. I believe, in this case, whether swimming nude on your backyard pool or growing opium poppies, you don't have a complete expectation of privacy.

When aerial photographs are taken of my neighborhood, my 4th Amendment rights have not been violated. If I am growing opium poppies and they use those pictures in a case against me, then my rights probably would be protected. They would have to find other methods of gathering evidence that I am growing opium poppies (if I were, that is to say).

Actually, if the government used the knowledge that you were growing opium poppies (that was found illegally) as a trigger to dig deeper, it's tainted evidence and not admissible.

So, basically, this program would result in a lot of "evidence" that is inadmissible because it's an illegal search, and any evidence gained as a result would be inadmissible as well. Realistically (assuming we go back to being a society that follows the rule of law), this program could end up doing more harm by tainting all sorts of evidence and allowing dangerous individuals to go free.

I still have a hard time understanding people that don't have a problem with this. Is it the old "I don't do anything wrong, so I don't object" theory?

MattLarson · #99 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I think you're giving the press way too much credit. I also think that if a clear abuse is about to happen, it should be stopped, instead of waiting for it to actually occur and then waiting 10 years for the lawsuits to get cleared through the judicial system.

This is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, and as such should be stopped immediately.

I somewhat agree, depending on the exact circumstances.

The USSC has held that the use of technological means to see what could not be seen via "normal sight" constitutes a search.

But you would have to be in a place where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy first.

As an example, an FBI agent using a telescope from a rooftop to watch you in a public park would not be a search, because you have no expectation of privacy in such a public place.

But that same agent, with the same telescope, looking in your apartment window would need a warrant, because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.

By extension, I would think that the use of overhead imagery (be it satellite or RPV, etc) would constitute a search if you were in a place where you would be concealed from the ordinary sight of the public (such as in a fenced yard).

OTOH, the use of such technology to detect people unlawfully crossing the border would not be a search, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those open, public areas.

Matt

MattLarson · #**100** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

When aerial photographs are taken of my neighborhood, my 4th Amendment rights have not been violated. If I am growing opium poppies and they use those pictures in a case against me, then my rights probably would be protected. They would have to find other methods of gathering evidence that I am growing opium poppies (if I were, that is to say).

Actually, when those photographs are taken by the police or their agents, a search has occurred, at least with respect to any area of your property that is not readily visible to the public (such as a fenced yard).

When thermal imaging became available to police agencies, some of them began examining the heat signatures of the roofs in their areas to see who was growing pot in their attic. The USSC ruled that such imaging was a search under the 4th Amendment.

Matt

pramjockey · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Yup.

Matt, you've got it exactly. I don't take issue with images being taken of public places (parks, etc.). Clearly, though, this program will not be limited to public lands.

Steve · #**102** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Yes, but what if your property is behind a fence? Or, behind a hill? Or the middle of a wooded area? Barring line-of-sight, and an imminent danger to others, or a clear violation of the law, you do have an expectation of privacy, which has been well established in the courts.

If your house is behind a hill, and you don't own that hill, government authorities can climb it and take all the photos and video they want, and they're violating nothing.

What if your property is behind a fence, but I own the hill adjacent to that fence? If I can peer into your yard, the fact that you have a fence means nothing...

Si modo · #**103** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Actually, when those photographs are taken by the police or their agents, a search has occurred, at least with respect to any area of your property that is not readily visible to the public (such as a fenced yard).

When thermal imaging became available to police agencies, some of them began examining the heat signatures of the roofs in their areas to see who was growing pot in their attic. The USSC ruled that such imaging was a search under the 4th Amendment.

Matt

True, if it is a government agency. A friend of mine in Texas did it for property developers and a friend of mine here (when I was on the Eastern shore), does it for grins (and buzzed my house way too low (<1000ft) one day...I was startled so much, it almost knocked me off of my ladder.)

If the cops find out about those photographs of opium poppies while examining the photos for an unrelated reason (traffic patterns...whatever), are they then classified as an agent of the government? Or, if my friends give the photos to the cops, I wonder if they have made themselves into govt agents? (Not being facetious, but really wondering about this.)

Steve · #**104** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Yup.

Matt, you've got it exactly. I don't take issue with images being taken of public places (parks, etc.). Clearly, though, this program will not be limited to public lands.

Really?

Could you detail this program to illustrate how they're going to try to peer into your yard?

pramjockey · #**105** (**permalink**) 08-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

If your house is behind a hill, and you don't own that hill, government authorities can climb it and take all the photos and video they want, and they're violating nothing.

What if your property is behind a fence, but I own the hill adjacent to that fence? If I can peer into your yard, the fact that you have a fence means nothing...

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point or not. Yes, you can find a few specific examples that make the law and the Constitutional protections murky. That doesn't mean that the 4th Amendment is now void.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode