| Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? We've seen depictions of hostile airbore spy-cameras used in numerous science fiction TV shows and films (ie. Outer Limits, Terminator, etc.). And in those shows we've seen the revolutionary terrorists (freedom loving peeps) shooting them down.
Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Question Looms:
"Every single day / And every word you say / Every game you play, every night you stay / I'll be watching you
Oh, can't you see / You belong to me?"
...that famous line of Sting and the Police perhaps best summarizes the warning delivered in a report released last week by the Congressional Research Service that suggests the growing army of drones flying over the U.S. airspace could be used to continuously monitor U.S. citizens.
Some companies are examining the possibility of deploying armed drones (war drones) over U.S. soil to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies a weapon in the sky to use against "criminals".
Based on current U.S. court precedent, the report hypothesizes that courts would deem nano-drone visual or heat-image surveillance of U.S. citizens inside their homes to be illegal. However, it is less clear whether drones would be disallowed to stalk Americans in their backyards, swimming pools, deck, or porch. And intelligence agencies would likely be able to freely spy on people in public locations.
The good news is that there are several proposals floating around Congress to block using drones to spy on Americans without warrant. The bad news is that past efforts to limit warrantless drone use have been largely struck down, and that the current efforts do not necessarily ban all kinds of warrantless use.
One aspect of the measure not discussed by the report is what the legal rammifications would be of a legally armed U.S. citizens shooting down or hacking a drone that was spying on them or a nearby neighbor. As unlikely as that scenario sounds, it could happen if use soars.
It can be safely presumed that the responsible agency would try to charge the citizen for destroying federal property, obstruction of justice, or other similar charges. The real question is what the courts would make of such a case. |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 | Most people couldn't hit water if they fell out of a dingy in the middle of the ocean, shooting down a spy drone, unlikely. So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be?
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
|
|
 DownTheShoreStronger Than The StormPremium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:12 | reply to FF4m3
It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go? If you post a sign on your property warning others away, would the drone's incursion count as deliberate trespass? |
|
 THZNDUPDeorum Offensa Diis CuraePremium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2 | reply to Link Logger
Finally, a use for the Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter Flugzeugabwehrkanone 36 sitting in the back yard.
Sure gonna upset the neighbors though..............
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything |
|
| reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be?
(youtube clip)
The difference would be twofold:
1) Commercial airliners are not spy planes.
2) Commercial airliners have human beings aboard who would be killed. Drones do not.
I don't like the idea of these drones but I think there is some overreaction going on. What would be concerning to me is not what they can see outdoors, but what they can see *indoors.* When I go out in public, I don't have much of an expectation of privacy, but sitting in my home is another story.
Supposedly it will be illegal for these drones to be able to use thermal imaging (and other methods of seeing through walls) in the U.S., but how can we trust the government to do the right thing and follow the law? They don't have a very good track record of not abusing such technologies or infringing on the 4th amendment (a la NSA and AT&T).
Moreover, I fail to see how these drones will help whatsoever in preventing crime or terrorism. It's just security theater.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999 |
|
THZNDUPDeorum Offensa Diis CuraePremium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2 | reply to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go? If you post a sign on your property warning others away, would the drone's incursion count as deliberate trespass?
quote:
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos ("For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.")
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
I'd guess that aspect would be preempted by any number of 'local' ordinances as well as common sense regarding the discharge of firearms into the air.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to DownTheShore
A primer on air rights: » www.planning.org/pas/at60/report···int=trueAir rights are there, but governments have put limits on them thru legislation - usually at the municipal level for development efforts. But nationally, in 1926 the Air Commerce Act took away most peoples claim to air rights above about 500 to 1000 ft above your house. » www.straightdope.com/columns/rea···my-houseIn 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground. You see the practical effect of this. One minute you're lord of all you survey; the next you're living under the interstate.
Usque ad coelum as a principle of private ownership was formally given the boot by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Causby (1946). The court laid down a new rule: you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land. Military aircraft using a nearby airport during World War II had flown over the Causby family chicken farm at an altitude of 83 feet, scaring the chickens and rendering the property unfit for the raising thereof. The court generously ruled that the Causbys had a right to compensation. Big of them, wasn't it? Bah. Under the previous system Old Man Causby could have taken out a few bombers with his shotgun, and that would have been that.
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
| reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:Most people couldn't hit water if they fell out of a dingy in the middle of the ocean, shooting down a spy drone, unlikely. So can I shoot down a commercial airliner as I'm sure its being used to spy on me, ie the difference would be? Guess that you need to be updated about low level hoovering capable insect/bird sized drones...
● Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance
● Bugs in the sky: Boeing showcases hard-to-detect drones that behave like a 'swarm of insects'
● US military surveillance future: Drones now come in swarms? |
|
| reply to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:It might turn into a question of air rights - who owns the air rights above your property, and how far up (or down) does it go? It's 'public' airspace under US government (or the nation in which you reside) jurisdiction. |
|
| reply to FF4m3
In a previous thread it was discussed that drone tech is now inexpensive enough for private individuals to build and fly their own drones to purposefully spy on...? |
|
 leiboldPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-09
Sunnyvale, CA
kudos:6
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to THZNDUP
said by THZNDUP:Finally, a use for the Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter Flugzeugabwehrkanone 36 sitting in the back yard.
At that Kaliber you only need to fire blanks to take down any drone (I have seen what blanks fired from a 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft cannon can do).
--
Got some spare cpu cycles ? Join Team Helix or Team Starfire! |
|
THZNDUPDeorum Offensa Diis CuraePremium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2 | I was thinking of using the FLAK 88 for the armed drones higher up since the city declined my permit for a missile battery. If fact, they even have an ordinance banning the discharge of BB/pellet guns..... 
My Army unit had one of their 3inch anti-tank tubes (firing 75mm blanks) that every so often would emit a perfect smoke ring. At about 100ft out of the barrel it would be about 30ft in diameter. Never had a camera ready when it would do that, darn.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything |
|
| reply to THZNDUP
said by THZNDUP:I'd guess that aspect would be preempted by any number of 'local' ordinances as well as common sense regarding the discharge of firearms into the air. Yup, pretty sure most civilized places have laws covering discharging ammunition in the air due to property damage and injuries from falling ammo.
One day you think you're just trying to take a drone down and 2-3 days later you get the FBI knocking on your door because you injured/killed a neighbor 2-3 blocks away with a stray bullet. Trying to shoot the drone would not feel like such a bright idea anymore. |
|
| said by InvalidError:Yup, pretty sure most civilized places have laws covering discharging ammunition in the air due to property damage and injuries from falling ammo. Some privately/militarily deployed 'insectoid drones' might be taken out by the use of a low-tech flyswatter. |
|
| reply to FF4m3
So now we need to discuss the cost of a giant 2 way mirror awning or a photon jamming device, while considering present or future laws relating to the use of said devices. |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
1 edit | reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :We've seen depictions of hostile airbore spy-cameras used in numerous science fiction TV shows and films (ie. Outer Limits, Terminator, etc.). And in those shows we've seen the revolutionary terrorists (freedom loving peeps) shooting them down.
Can U.S. Citizen Shoot Down Domestic Spy Drones? Question Looms:
... The real question is what the courts would make of such a case. ... I suspect the real question is whether anybody actually wants the compounded grief that shooting down any drone would cause. Whatever else "the courts would make of such a case", they (and the various agencies flying such things) can almost be guaranteed to make one's life a living Hell of litigation, compounded charges, bonds, fines, confiscations, appeals, re-filing of updated charges, ad nauseum for taking such direct action. Not to mention all the lawsuits arising from the collateral damage when the thing crashed. To modify an old Air Force saying: there are old patriots and there are bold patriots, but there are no old, bold patriots.
edit: typo
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
 caffeinatorComing soon to a cup near you..Premium
join:2005-01-16
WA, USA
kudos:4
·CenturyLink
3 edits | reply to FF4m3
FAIK, destroying Gov't and/or Military property will get you severely messed up. Different set of rules for them folks, we used to know that.
This sue-happy MINE MINE MINE BS is gonna end this country.
Go ahead, take a hammer to a T-38 or F-16 and see what happens. I'm guessing we won't be seeing you for awhile.
You shoot at a USAF craft, they can shoot back. Do you have Tomahawks? Because they do. Not to mention what may happen if an armed drone falls into your residential space might not be to your liking.
Also, Patriot Act...i.e., you and everyone you know would not like it. The U.S. Gov't owns this country and its airspace, you don't.
Firing at a US warbird will make you an enemy combatant. Meaning you no longer have rights.
Since 9/11, the gloves are off if they so desire. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was.
--
My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages |
|
| said by caffeinator:The U.S.A. hasn't been a Democracy in a long time...if it ever was. +1 |
|
| reply to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:I suspect the real question is whether anybody actually wants the compounded grief that shooting down any drone would cause. Exactly. A population that's under 24/7 surveillance coupled with fear induced passivity.
The Perfect New American Dream. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to caffeinator
|
|
