Photo: J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times
” ‘As privacy law stands today, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while out in public, nor almost anywhere visible from a public vantage,’ said Ryan Calo, director of privacy and robotics at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University. ‘I don’t think this doctrine makes sense, and I think the widespread availability of drones will drive home why to lawmakers, courts and the public.’ ” (Nick Wingfield & Somini Sengupta, NYTimes.com)
And check out these previous posts on drones.
“What’s interesting here is that there was a 5-4 split on why the Justices ruled as they did. Justice Sotomayor, writing a concurrent opinion, wrote, ‘When the Government physically invades personal property to gather information, a search occurs.The reaffirmation of that principle suffices to decide this case.’ Since the government had invaded property, the Justices did not need to evaluate any of the other principles that this case brings up.
And there are many principles that this case brings up. Sotomayor talks about many of them: what about electronic surveillance if no property was trespassed upon? What about the chilling effects of potential long-term electronic surveillance? What about the fact that GPS monitoring gives far more specific information, and is far easier and cheaper, than traditional visual surveillance? What about the fact that this data can be stored and mined later?” (Alice Marwick, Social Media Collective)