It's already happened:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...rrest-20111211
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think that law enforcement needs tools to help them do their jobs more effectively and to minimize risk. However, I also think that police should never be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tools and actions that [could] infringe on our privacy rights. A drone allows cops to observe, with extreme sensitivity, a spot of land for hours on end. Should that require a warrant? Do we consent to having cops peer into our backyards as much as they want to? Is this much different from classified satellite capabilities?
I think this technology will be the source of many lawsuits.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...rrest-20111211
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think that law enforcement needs tools to help them do their jobs more effectively and to minimize risk. However, I also think that police should never be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tools and actions that [could] infringe on our privacy rights. A drone allows cops to observe, with extreme sensitivity, a spot of land for hours on end. Should that require a warrant? Do we consent to having cops peer into our backyards as much as they want to? Is this much different from classified satellite capabilities?
I think this technology will be the source of many lawsuits.
Comment