

The ‘Preserving American Privacy Act’ would ban weaponizing of drones - acenine
http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/02/16/the-newly-introduced-preserving-american-privacy-act-bans-drone-weaponization-require-warrants-for-law-enforcement-use/

======
anigbrowl
I've never thought of being shot as a violation of my _privacy_.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I thought that was interesting. Also, I'm not sure why we need a specific law
on the books to prevent people from being summarily executed by the government
without due process. It's substantially disturbing that it might be necessary
though.

~~~
Zimahl
The problem is we are already executing American citizens overseas with drones
without trial or due process. They may have been terrorists but they are still
citizens and have a right to defend themselves against the charges presented
to them.

It's not a huge stretch that someone could be considered a domestic terrorist
and be targeted.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The rules of war on a battlefield are not and cannot be the same as the rules
of civilized society. The problem is that today the two have become far too
mixed, and the boundaries of what is a battlefield during a time of war have
become indistinct and blurry. To the extent that basically anything outside US
borders can fit the bill at any given time, depending on the circumstances.

I would say that this definitely goes way too far and we'll probably need a
constitutional amendment to fix it.

------
andrewflnr
I feel like we need an enforced Single Responsibility Principle for
legislation. I sometimes wonder how effective it would be to require that all
bills be less than, say, ten pages long. Banning armed drones except for the
military is probably a good idea, but as anigbrowl pointed out[0], it doesn't
have much to do with privacy.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5229999>

~~~
logn
Regarding privacy:

"The bill stipulates that drones operated by the government must obtain a
warrant before they can “collect information that can identify individuals in
a private area.” In public areas, the government has to post notice that it
will be collecting information in that location."

With cameras, infra-red, mics, and x-ray, they're a real threat to privacy.
They could even be armed with mobile and wifi tapping technology.

~~~
andrewflnr
I know, but those are sensors. That's a very different issue from weapons
which can kill you. I think they should be in different bills.

------
asynchronous13
Police or other government agents are already required to get a warrant before
collecting information. It doesn't matter if it's a phone tap, an unmanned
aircraft, or a GoPro on a stick! Is it necessary to re-iterate existing laws
for every new technology that pops up?

~~~
rayiner
The police are already prevented from using helicopters to collect visual
information from places that would not ordinarily be visible. I can't see why
drones would be any different.

I really think people are responding to the somewhat disconcerting idea of
drones watching you from the air while you're out in public. Essentially,
people are worried about cops having a more efficient way to do something they
could legally already do: observe you while you are in public.

~~~
paxswill
By what logic do you think the police are prevented from using helicopters to
collect ordinarily unobservable areas? The main relevant Supreme Court case I
could remember was Kyllo v. US [0], but in refreshing my memory, it seems that
that case only applies to intruding the privacy of the home, especially with
technology that is not widely available. In fact, two cases linked from that
article [1][2] directly support the ability of police to perform aerial
surveillance, but only for things officers can see with the naked eye.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States>

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo>

2: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley>

------
bmcfeeley
It will be interesting, should this pass, to see how broadly the phrase
“collect information that can identify individuals in a private area” will be
interpreted. Wishful thinking to hope for it to be applicable to our
activities on social media, etc?

------
cmccabe
This is a pretty big waste of Congress' time. The Department of Defense, the
only part of the government that actually has weaponized drones, is
specifically exempted. I somehow doubt that any of the three-letter agencies
will pay attention to the ban on using drones to collect information.

I hate the fake constitutional concern, too. The founding fathers didn't
recognize privacy as a right. And even if they had, it wouldn't be in the
constitution-- it would be in the Bill of Rights. The closest thing you can
find is probably the fourth amendment, which protects against "unreasonable
search and seizure." If we really cared about the fourth amendment, we'd get
rid of stuff like the DEA, the TSA, and Echelon. Somehow, I don't see that
happening in this bill. The net effect will probably be more red tape for
anyone who wants to build a drone.

