ARGUS... a video surveillance platform

[BridgeTroll]

Pretty amazing...

http://www.youtube.com/v/QGxNyaXfJsA

[FSBA]

Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.

[If_I_Loved_you]

Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.

Well until the Supreme Court of the United States of America gets involved? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-the-supreme-court-gps

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.

How so? 

[Dog Walker]

If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.

And, if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have?

[BridgeTroll]

It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...

[If_I_Loved_you]

If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.

And, if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have?

(If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.) What are the odds this is going to happen? And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

[If_I_Loved_you]

It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...

United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...

United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29

Video monitoring is not quite the same as physically attaching something to private property.  It's no different, IMO, than having a 'person' follow you around - a tail.  Though, it's extremely more reliable and cost effective.

[FSBA]

And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?

Ever heard of presumption of innocence?

[BridgeTroll]

It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...

United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29

The difference is... the government actually installed a device on the suspects personal property. 

[BridgeTroll]

And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?

There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this?  Don't any occur to you?

Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis.  Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty.  This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all.  That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.

Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.

The Constitution forbids surveillance by high altitude drones??  Surely the founders could never have conceived of such a thing.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?

There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this?  Don't any occur to you?

Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis.  Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty.  This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all.  That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.

Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.

What privacy am I to expect as I walk down a sidewalk or drive down the road or enjoy one of the many parks open spaces that Jacksonville has to offer?

[FSBA]

quote author=BridgeTroll link=topic=17356.msg315145#msg315145 date=1359475997]

And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?

If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?

There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this?  Don't any occur to you?

Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis.  Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty.  This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all.  That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.

Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.

The Constitution forbids surveillance by high altitude drones??  Surely the founders could never have conceived of such a thing.
[/quote]

It applies to drones just as much as it does to the internet