Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:09 pm
Time: 8:09 pm
Results for surveillance techniques
3 results foundAuthor: Bronitt, Simon Title: The Social Implications of Covert Policing Summary: This volume is based on a selection of papers presented at a workshop held in April 2009 at the Australian National University in Canberra. The workshop canvassed a wide range of topics addressing the application of covert surveillance techniques in policing and their social implications. Participants were drawn from a range of professions and disciplines including policing and intelligence studies; criminology and criminal justice; Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); law, ethics, human rights and public policy. As a group, participants recognised the need to equip law enforcement with the right tools for the job, though the corollary was the consensus that new and emerging technologies need to be regulated effectively. The discussion also underscored the importance of not limiting debate about reform to technical or technological perspectives. Wide normative concerns (drawn from a legal, human rights, public policy or ethical perspectives) must also be addressed. Details: Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong Press, Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, Faculty of Law, 2010. 193p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.ceps.edu.au/files/The%20Social%20Implications%20of%20Covert%20Policing.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.ceps.edu.au/files/The%20Social%20Implications%20of%20Covert%20Policing.pdf Shelf Number: 120911 Keywords: Covert PolicingCovert SurveillanceSurveillance Techniques |
Author: Thompson II, Richard M. Title: Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses Summary: The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues. Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can fly without an onboard human operator. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital network, and personnel on the ground. Drones can fly either by remote control or on a predetermined flight path; can be as small as an insect and as large as a traditional jet; can be produced more cheaply than traditional aircraft; and can keep operators out of harm’s way. These unmanned aircraft are most commonly known for their operations overseas in tracking down and killing suspected members of Al Qaeda and related organizations. In addition to these missions abroad, drones are being considered for use in domestic surveillance operations, which might include in furtherance of homeland security, crime fighting, disaster relief, immigration control, and environmental monitoring. Although relatively few drones are currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation’s skies in less than 20 years. Congress has played a large role in this expansion. In February 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015. However, some Members of Congress and the public fear there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that drones are not used to spy on American citizens and unduly infringe upon their fundamental privacy. These observers caution that the FAA is primarily charged with ensuring air traffic safety, and is not adequately prepared to handle the issues of privacy and civil liberties raised by drone use. This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court’s determination of the reasonableness of drone surveillance would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement. While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards. Concomitantly, as technology advances, the contours of what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment may adjust as people’s expectations of privacy evolve. In the 112th Congress, several measures have been introduced that would restrict the use of drones at home. Senator Rand Paul and Representative Austin Scott introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (S. 3287, H.R. 5925), which would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using drones for domestic surveillance, subject to several exceptions. Similarly, Representative Ted Poe’s Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 6199) would permit law enforcement to conduct drone surveillance pursuant to a warrant, but only in investigation of a felony. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2012. 23p. Source: CRS Report R42701: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2012 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf Shelf Number: 126334 Keywords: Covert Surveillance, DronesFourth AmendmentLegislationSurveillanceSurveillance Techniques |
Author: Smith, Michael L. Title: Regulating Law Enforcement's Use of Drones: The Need for State Legislation Summary: The recent rise of domestic drone technology has prompted privacy advocates and members of the public to call for the regulation of the use of drones by law enforcement officers. Numerous states have proposed legislation to regulate government drone use, and thirteen have passed laws that restrict the use of drones by law enforcement agencies. Despite the activity in state legislatures, commentary on the drones tends to focus on how courts, rather than legislative bodies, can restrict the government's use of drones. Commentators call for wider Fourth Amendment protections that would limit government surveillance. In the process, in-depth analysis of state drone regulations has fallen by the wayside. In this article, I take up the task of analyzing and comparing state laws regulating the government's use of drones. While the oldest of these laws was enacted in 2013, the thirteen laws passed so far exhibit wide variations and noteworthy trends. I survey this quickly-expanding list of laws, note which regulations are likely to constrain government drone use, and identify laws that provide only the illusion of regulation. I advance the thesis that the judiciary is ill-suited to address the rapidly-developing area of drone technology. Long-established Supreme Court precedent leaves the judiciary with very little power to curtail government drone use. And were the judiciary to attempt the task of restricting law enforcement's use of drones, the solutions proposed would likely be imprecise, unpredictable, and difficult to reverse. In light of these concerns, privacy advocates and law enforcement agencies alike should support the regulation of government drone use by state legislatures, and should look to existing laws in determining what regulations are ideal. Details: Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2492374 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2492374 Shelf Number: 133186 Keywords: Covert Surveillance, Drones (U.S.)DronesFourth AmendmentLegislationSurveillanceSurveillance Techniques |