ARGUS... a video surveillance platform

[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?

From your government or from line of sight eyewitnesses?

In the case of the latter, none.  In the former, every kind and all.

And if line of sight witnesses are paid by the government to follow you?  I'm not making a distinction between the two. 

I know you're expanding the argument a bit, but this is mostly in response to IILY's US v/s Jones remark.

[If_I_Loved_you]

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?

For the most part you are Guilty unless found Innocence.

[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

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.

But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"

[If_I_Loved_you]

Then they have the right.

The difference---to my mind-- is the ability for you to make a decision about which of your actions to make and when, if you decide to keep them private while in public.  You can decide to wait for strangers to pass, or look in a different direction before you scratch your nether regions for example, or you can save your confiding glances to an already attached love interest, or you can pass notes to a religious figure at your own discretion.

And more importantly you can choose not to do any of those things on a street belonging to either the public or to the government.

Unspottable drones are a new twist, but untraceable, unauthorized surveillance by the government is something weve expressly forbidden for over two hundred years---except of course for the boobs who followed Dick Cheney's Administration down the rabbit hole.

Privacy is yours.  And it is precious.  Worth keeping in my opinion.

"Privacy is yours.  And it is precious.  Worth keeping in my opinion." Amen!

[buckethead]

Then they have the right.

The difference---to my mind-- is the ability for you to make a decision about which of your actions to make and when, if you decide to keep them private while in public.  You can decide to wait for strangers to pass, or look in a different direction before you scratch your nether regions for example, or you can save your confiding glances to an already attached love interest, or you can pass notes to a religious figure at your own discretion.

And more importantly you can choose not to do any of those things on a street belonging to either the public or to the government.

Unspottable drones are a new twist, but untraceable, unauthorized surveillance by the government is something weve expressly forbidden for over two hundred years---except of course for the boobs who followed Dick Cheney's Administration down the rabbit hole.

Privacy is yours.  And it is precious.  Worth keeping in my opinion.

Quoted for truth.

[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.

But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"

The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008 the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17] ~ Wikipedia

So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed.  I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.

[If_I_Loved_you]

The Patriot Act You Don’t Know About:

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says. http://www.thenation.com/blog/166865/patriot-act-you-dont-know-about

[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

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.

But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"

The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008 the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17] ~ Wikipedia

So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed.  I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.

That's not what is in question? United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), is a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case regarding government's installation and prolonged use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device[1]. Without a warrant, the government installed a GPS device on the suspect's car and continuously monitored that vehicle for 28 days.[2] Although the Court asked parties to address whether "the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment," the Court's ruling was narrower than its question presented.[3] On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search'" under the Fourth Amendment.[4]The court did not address whether such a search would be unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

That's not what is in question? United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012),

I know it's tough to keep up, but I was responding with the original verdict to your assumption:

But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"

So I'll requote to save a few keystrokes:

So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed.  I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

NonRedneck I think that it would be fair to say that the reason people quote Case Law is because there is an idea that they would like to point out, not to retry the facts of the already settled case.

Based on what I've read, the case isn't settled.  The USSC judged that the GPS monitor was, in effect, an illegal search, and that the evidence gathered must be excluded.  The twist comes now that the prosecution was planning on using the cell-tower signal location to prove his movements and that the defendant is also challenging that.

The funny part about it (or not so funny), as I pointed out to IILY, is that no one is arguing that cocaine was being trafficked, only how the information was/is gathered.

IILY is basing an argument of a premise of innocence and that doesn't appear to be the case here.  And no one is disputing that the physical attachment of a GPS system, or even the tapping into a manufacturer GPS system, without a warrant goes against the intent of the 4th.  I believe in this case that video surveillance, of a person on public ROW, would be completely admissible and that this guy would have no recourse for appeal.

[BridgeTroll]

Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...

Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person.  A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc).  Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime.  They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.

In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them.  This technology... like many others... is simply a tool.  It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part. 

Public view is public view, IMO.

[BridgeTroll]

Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...

Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person.  A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc).  Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime.  They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.

In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them.  This technology... like many others... is simply a tool.  It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...

While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained.  And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy.  I really do think this is apples and oranges.

If used as described above... what is lost?

[BridgeTroll]

I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part. 

Public view is public view, IMO.

Using it as a method of compromise.  Think of it this way... in order to get a search warrent... probable cause is needed.  Regardless of whether the police wish to search a house or car etc.  The same could be said for this technology.  The recording holds the evidence... no one even knows it is there... until the police have probable cause a crime was committed.  they would need a time... a place... a suspect, etc to access the recorded data.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained.  And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy.  I really do think this is apples and oranges.

So, Stephen, (other than time, money and somewhat of a life  ) what's to prevent me from following you around with a video camera?  Filming your daily routine.  From your coffee at Bold Bean to your meetings at City Hall to your dinner somewhere in 5points.  I'm constantly on public property.  I'm breaking no laws.  Possibly making you uncomfortable, but staying outside of the legal definition for harassment. 

What's the difference?