Friday, July 25, 2014

Obama and Iran: Work Together to Crack Down on First Amendment Right to Acquire Information

Iran: mullahs’ plan to round satellite dishes in western province:

In the latest Iran crackdown plan, Manuchehr Amanollahi, head of Kermanshah Province police in western Iran, said there is a widespread plan to round up satellite dishes in this province.
“Any type of purchasing, selling, installing and using of satellite TV is considered a crime and the police will take measures based on the law and deal with the culprits of such crimes,” he said quoted by the state-run ISNA news agency.

“In some period these measures have been carried out in more severity and in some periods it has been very little. However, the police has the plan to take measures against the satellite TV road is on the police’s agenda,” Amanollahi added.

He went on to say 300 dishes were rounded up last week alone. “The priority in dealing with this issue is with the distributors and installers of this equipment, and also if any type of satellite equipment is installed inside homes.

In related news, President Barack Obama announced government plans to crack down on using drones in the US to acquire information.

President Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order to develop privacy guidelines for commercial drones operating in U.S. airspace, POLITICO has learned.

The order would put the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an arm of the Commerce Department, in charge of developing the guidelines. NTIA would bring together companies and consumer groups to hammer out a series of voluntary best practices for unmanned aerial vehicles.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Come crash your drone in downtown St. Louis. Its OK, really : News

Come crash your drone in downtown St. Louis. Its OK, really : News

City of Saint Louis police "say the owner of a DJI Phantom 2 Quadcopter found
damaged May 5 after crashing into the Metropolitan Square building at
211 North Broadway contacted police after seeing news reports of the
discovery" and has been identified.

Being unfamiliar with the First Amendment which assures the right to acquire information, the Post Dispatch does not understand why this was OK, but really it was.

The University of Missouri needs to get its Drone Journalism program up and running so that cub reporters will have respect for the First Amendment and the right to acquire information using technology.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Committee F38 on Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Committee F38 on Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This Committee addresses issues related to design, performance, quality
acceptance tests, and safety monitoring for unmanned air vehicle
systems. Stakeholders include manufactures of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and their components, federal agencies, design professionals,
professional societies, maintenance professionals, trade associations,
financial organizations, and academia. Over 130 members are involved in
this multinational initiative; all participating actively within a
three-tiered subcommittee structure focusing on airworthiness, flight
operations, and operator qualifications.

Committee F38 meets twice a
year, usually in May and November, with approximately 50 members
attending three days of technical meetings. The Committee currently has
jurisdiction of over 2 standards, published in the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Volume 15.11. Information on F38's subcommittee structure
and portfolio of approved standards and Work Items under construction
are available from the List of Subcommittees, Standards and Work Items
below. These standards have and continue to play a preeminent role in
all aspects important to the UAS industry. 

Reminder: In January the FAA said no drones in Class B Space, now

Fact Sheet – Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Unmanned aircraft are flying now in the national airspace system under
very controlled conditions. Operations potentially range from ground
level to above 50,000 feet, depending on the specific type of aircraft.
However, UAS operations are currently not authorized in Class B
airspace, which exists over major urban areas and contains the highest
density of manned aircraft in the National Airspace System.

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Class B Airspace Region for LAMBERT-ST LOUIS INTL (STL)

Class B Airspace Region for LAMBERT-ST LOUIS INTL (STL)

Small drone operation within Class B Airspace May Lead to Civil Money Penalty

 The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment of two civil money penalties to David Zablidowsky, the New York drone operator who suffered a downtown Manhattan crash last year.

Here is a link to the notice.


There were two charges,  the broader being that Zablidowsky operated the drone in a careless or reckless manner, endangering the life or property of another, in violation of 14 CFR 91.13(a). Here is a link to the regulation.

The second charge was that the drone was operated within restricted airspace, leading to discussion that drones may not be operated over major cites. See FAA Now Says Flying a Drone in Most Major Cities Is Illegal

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones) Prohibited in Yosemite National Park - Yosemite National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones) Prohibited in Yosemite National Park - Yosemite National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

After reading, ask, What if the drone is not "delivering or retrieving a person or object" but is merely photographing?

Second, what about larger drones that fly over higher, but with more powerful cameras?

UAS article Journal of Law Enforcement

Microsoft Word - UAS article Journal of Law Enforcement edits v3 ajm.docx - 248


Daniel Friedenzohn and Alexander Mirot
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security in Public by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security in Public by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson :: SSRN


Do citizens have any Fourth Amendment protection from sense-enhancing surveillance technologies in public? This article engages a timely question as new surveillance technologies have redefined expectations of privacy in public spaces.

This article proposes a new theory of Fourth Amendment security based on the ancient theory of curtilage protection for private property. Curtilage has long been understood as a legal fiction that expands the protection of the home beyond the formal structures of the house. Curtilage recognizes a buffer zone beyond the four corners of the home that deserves protection, even in public, even if accessible to public view. Based on custom and law protecting against both nosy neighbors and the government, curtilage was defined by the actions the property owner took to signal a protected space. In simple terms, by building a wall around one’s house, the property owner marked out an area of private control. So, too, the theory of personal curtilage turns on persons being able to control the protected areas of their lives in public by similarly signifying that an area is meant to be secure from others. 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Thoughts on the Robots 2014 | Program


1. Let's all hope this marks the high water mark of the "but its for our privacy" crowd.

Privacy will not be an issue when Robots (including Drones) are fully integrated into the National Airspace because detect and avoid will be networked into the Internet of Things.

Your smart phone (or other PED) will tell you what devices are operating near you, by whom, and what they are about.

No legitimate owner or operator will oppose such.

More importantly, the truly great potential of Robots and Drones will be there ability to swarm (and multitask).

  • The autonomous crop duster can divert to a nearby highway to aid with a truck accident.
  • The real estate agent's drop can divert to aid in the search of some one who has slipped away from an elderly care facility.
In sum, because they start in the wrong place---looking at the technology in an adversarial way---they miss the point. The power of the technology lies within its capacity to network, i.e, to cooperate.

2. The condescension and arrogance of the chicken little, sky is falling, "but its our privacy crowd" is stunning. There was no a single representative present of our suburban and urban lower income communities, who have the most to gain from far better police protection and law enforcement, but there were plenty of people ready, willing, and able to speak for their "Rights."

A link to the papers:

Robots 2014 | Program:

The Second Amendment Right to Deploy Self Defense Robitics

Penn State Law Review Online Companion Penn State Law Review

Dan Terzian
Can robotic weapons be “Arms” under the Second Amendment?  This article argues that they can.  In particular, it challenges the claim that the Second Amendment protects only weapons that can be carried in one’s hands, which has roots in both Supreme Court Second Amendment doctrine, namely District of Columbia v. Heller, and scholarship.  Scrutinizing these roots shows thatHeller did not create such a requirement and that little, if any, constitutional basis for it exists.
This article also contextualizes robotic weapons within the established Second Amendment framework for arms.  Robotic weapons are not yet arms, but there is no legal impediment—nor should there be—to them becoming arms.
Finally, this article presents an alternative theory of Second Amendment protection for robotic weapons based on auxiliary rights, in light of the Seventh Circuit case United States v. Ezell.  This article posits that Second Amendment auxiliary rights include the right to employ a bodyguard, whether human or robot.

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Spirits in the Material World: Intelligent Agents as Intermediaries in Electronic Commerce by Ian R. Kerr :: SSRN

Spirits in the Material World: Intelligent Agents as Intermediaries in Electronic Commerce by Ian R. Kerr :: SSRN


The article provides an in-depth analysis of the contract issues peculiar to automated electronic commerce. The aim of the study is to provide a critical evaluation of the various solutions that might be adopted by a legislature seeking to cure formal defects in agreements that are negotiated and entered into by software programs, independent of human review. The author begins with an examination of the current state of the technology that automates electronic commerce, offering some speculation as to its future development. He then outlines the barriers to automated electronic commerce inherent in traditional contract doctrine. He argues against the proposal to cure doctrinal difficulties by deeming electronic devices to be legal persons and investigates the merit of the legislative approaches adopted by UNCITRAL, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (U.S.), and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. He ends by advocating an alternative approach, based on the law of agency.


Ryan Calo

here is the link


Two decades of analysis have produced a rich set of insights as to how the law should apply to the Internet’s peculiar characteristics. But, in the meantime, technology has not stood still. The same public and private institutions that developed the Internet, from the armed forces to search engines, have initiated a significant shift
toward robotics and artificial intelligence.

This article is the first to examine what the introduction of a new, equally transformative technology means for cyberlaw (and law in general). Robotics has a different set of essential qualities than the Internet and, accordingly, will raise distinct issues of law and policy. Robotics combines, for the first time, the promiscuity of data with the capacity to do physical harm; robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be anticipated in advance; and robots increasingly blur the line between person and instrument.

Cyberlaw can and should evolve to meet these challenges.

Cyberlaw is interested, for instance, in how people are hardwired to think of going online as entering a “place,” and in the ways software constrains human behavior. The new cyberlaw will consider how we are hardwired to think of anthropomorphic machines as though they were social, and ponder the ways institutions and jurists can manage the behavior of software. Ultimately the methods and norms of cyberlaw—particularly
its commitments to interdisciplinary pragmatism—will prove crucial in integrating robotics, and perhaps whatever technology follows.




A. Michael Froomkin† & Zak Colangelo

here is the link

Considerations of a Legal Framework for the Safe and Resilient Operation of Autonomous Aerial Robots

Considerations of a Legal Framework for the Safe and Resilient Operation of Autonomous Aerial Robots


Cameron R. Cloar and Donna A. Dulo

here is the link


Aviation industry analysts project the market for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”), commonly referred to as drones, may reach almost $15 billion in annual worldwide sales within the current decade, and foresee exponential growth after that. They are destined to perform an unprecedented variety of tasks once the aircraft are integrated into our airspace in 2015, as set out in the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. These systems will perform search and rescue, survey rugged terrain, deliver pizza, photograph the world in a wide range of media, battle forest fires and perform other tasks that stretch the limits of the imagination. The extent of innovation for UAS is seemingly limitless. Yet, within this futuristic vision emerges an essential issue that cannot be ignored: safety.

It is a paramount concern that all UAS must have significant safety systems to ensure inherent resilience in the event of system failure or an external mishap. However, one potential subset of this new fledgling industry that presents unique safety challenges is autonomous UAS. Currently, many aerial systems operate under mostly human control; however, some segments of their operation can and will soon undoubtedly be done autonomously. For example, in the event of lost communications with the human operator, otherwise known as a lost link, or in a near collision that can trigger an automatic response in some systems, the UAS could be thrust into a total autonomous mode to alleviate the potential emergency.

Still other UAS on the market now and next are designed to operate under complete autonomy from takeoff to touchdown. In short, the spectrum for aerial robots operating autonomously is broad and increases by the day. The rapidly advancing technology raises numerous potential safety issues for all aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (“NAS”), as well as everyone occupying the ground below.

For now, the FAA has indicated that even when UAS are integrated into the NAS, its legal framework will not permit the use of autonomous technology. Foreclosing the use of such technology may stifle or end investment into some of the most promising and beneficial UAS platforms. Although challenging, the FAA should work to develop a legal framework that allows for the use of autonomous UAS technology. Legal rules for this UAS subset must account for many factors such as the underlying software, algorithms and mathematics that drive the robotic systems, the interface between the robotic systems and potential human operators, if any, the interface between the robotic system and the collision avoidance system, as well as all inherent onboard authority systems.

With this paper, the authors hope to begin the important discussion on developing a unified set of legal principles that may serve as the foundation to someday permit the operation of autonomous UAS. A legal framework will ensure that designers and manufacturers have the freedom of invention and innovation while having a defined set of rules with which to develop their aerial robotic systems to ensure safe, resilient autonomous and semi-autonomous operations in the national airspace. It will ensure that operators understand the bounds with which their vehicles must operate safely in the NAS. As importantly, such a framework assists legal practitioners and the judicial system in defining areas of product liability, operator liability, as well as areas of negligence and potential criminal culpability.

Our discussion is informed by the “UAS Autonomy Spectrum,” a visual system developed by the authors. While initially prepared for application to autonomous UAS, our ideas may be adaptable to other related new technology, including unmanned underwater robots, self-driving land vehicles, and any type of robotic vehicle that has varying degrees of autonomous capabilities. It touches upon the regulatory framework for aircraft under the Federal Aviation Regulations; with a particular emphasis on the new consensus-driven standards that are envisioned will reshape the design and certification of small general aviation aircraft. While our discussion is by no means complete, nor intended to serve as a final set of legal rules that can govern autonomous aerial technology, we hope that it will serve as a guide for stakeholders and help to ensure that unmanned aerial robots become the safe and resilient transformative innovations that they are destined to be.


Robots, Micro-Airspaces, and the Future of “Public Space”

Robots, Micro-Airspaces, and the Future of “Public Space”

Peter M. Asaro
School of Media Studies, The New School
Center for Internet & Society, Stanford Law School

Diana Marina Cooper
LaBarge Weinstein LLP

here is the link:


In United States v. Causby, the Supreme Court conceptualized airspace as a “public highway.” In the same decision, the Court recognized that landowners must be able to “exercise exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere” in order to exercise full enjoyment of their property. The precise boundaries of public and private space have always been contested; however, the lack of clear legal definition of “public space” is increasingly problematic given the growing availability and use of drones.

How should the law conceptualize “public space” in relation to drones and robots? Do drones present legitimately new issues for “public space” jurisprudence, or do they simply present issues of scale? Are there micro-airspaces surrounding individuals and special places that merit the recognition of an increased private interest in airspace? In what contexts should the law privatize or enclose portions of the “public highway” in favor of protecting privacy rights? How can the law reconcile a largely public airspace with diverse privacy expectations on the ground?

Should there be restrictions on the use of thermal, infrared, millimeter, or other advanced sensor technologies in the airspaces around public and private spaces? And, to what extent can local and state authorities develop or effect tailored regulations surrounding personal and commercial use of airspace?

In this paper we investigate the phenomenon of state and local jurisdictions taking on the privacy issues raised by small drones and their use by law enforcement or commercial entities. It remains to be seen whether or how Federal authorities, and the FAA in particular, may seek to challenge these new laws. These new potential authorities in the regulation of airspace may create great complexities in the varieties of airspaces and what is permissible in them, but this is not unprecedented. States issue drivers licenses, and local governments established speed limits, and so these “mini-airspaces” may be quite appropriate. Why should airspace be forced into a one-size-fits all model of regulation by a regulatory agency that does not seem sensitive to the needs and desires of numerous and varied localities?

We also raise the question of whether “airspace” is solely or best considered to be a feature of real property such as publicly or privately owned land, or might instead and better be thought of as a feature also belonging to individuals.

How might we envision a “micro-airspace” of one’s own person under which the observation, recording, archiving, and transmission to other parties of images or information obtained about you requires various forms of consent, notification, outright prohibitions, strict limitations on the retention of images or other data, and so forth. Such restrictions could also be specified in terms of identifiability of those recorded, or the use of various technologies or sensors, such as infrared or millimeter wave sensors.

In this paper, we consider the various legal precedents which might inform us as to the viability of such regulations.

We also consider the various metaphors of “airspace” in play in these cases, how privacy has been conceived in crucial judgements, and whether and how we might articulate a legal framework for “micro-airspaces” that provides

a regulatory framework that both protects individual rights, the “public” nature of public space, and provide for the introduction of public and commercial UAVs and other sorts of remote, semi-autonomous and autonomous robots with recording capabilities that can respect these rights and spaces. We contend that it is possible to have robust protections of individual rights and collective public spaces without onerous or industry-killing regulatory policies, and “micro-airspaces” could be part of that solution.

Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots

Risk, Product Liability Trends, Triggers, and Insurance in Commercial Aerial Robots


David K. Beyer, Donna A. Dulo, Gale A. Townsley, and Stephen S. Wu

April 5, 2014

here is the link


The commercialization of autonomous aerial robots, also known as drones or unmanned aerial systems, will make autonomous aerial robots pervasive and ubiquitous across the national airspace within the next few years. Yet even today with a highly limited number of drones operating in restricted airspace, accidents are making national news, including ones with fatalities and property damage. How can drone operators and drone manufacturers protect themselves from risk and liability once commercial operations are opened up in the national airspace in 2015?

Drones are essentially robotic aircraft. They can be operated with a “pilot” sitting in a ground station, but many will have autonomous capabilities where the aircraft will operate on its own. These autonomous aircraft will operate through advanced software systems coupled with sensing hardware and GPS navigation packaged in a highly maneuverable airframe. A key feature will be an autonomous anti-collision system that must not only protect the drone from collisions with other drones but also protects it from collisions with birds, other aircraft, buildings and structures.

The risks of crashes and incidents caused by drones in the national airspace are currently unknown. Risk profiles have yet to be determined due to the lack of available information. Insurance carriers may be able to extrapolate loss experience from the aviation industry but will need to be adjusted for the issues of robotic autonomy in flight, autonomy in collision avoidance, and autonomy in critical issues such as lost links, in which communications are cut off and the drone must make decisions on its own.

This paper will discuss drones in the national airspace from an autonomous robotics point of view. An original set of data will be presented with analysis based on studies of unmanned military aircraft accidents. These data and analysis will be applied to the current issues of national airspace integration to help determine liability triggers and trends to help answer insurance underwriting trends and products liability questions. In addition, the paper will discuss theories of product liability that plaintiffs may assert against drone manufacturers. For instance, plaintiffs may allege causes of action 1

such as strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and the violation of laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices. The paper will apply these theories to the context of piloted and autonomous unmanned systems. It will also cover methods for mitigating product liability risks.

Finally, the paper will discuss the unique insurance issues that may arise as commercial owners, manufacturers, and operators of drones seek to limit their risks of liability and damage exposure through the purchase of insurance. The paper will discuss the current emerging market of available insurance as well as the likely trend of insurance coverage including scope, limits, restrictions and availability as more drones are deployed commercially and claim experience grows. Both domestic and Lloyd’s of London based markets will be discussed.

Robots 2014 | Program

WeRobots 2014 | Program



Panel on Domestic Drones

Moderator: Dan Siciliano, Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford Law School

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Elements of an Intrusion on Seclusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project

What deeply troubles me about the current debate about civilian drones is the rush to legislation.

There has been absolutely no showing that our common law courts will lack the ability to develop appropriate remedies if a drone is used to invade privacy.

The tort is Intrusion into Seclusion, based on Section 652 of the Restatement of Torts (Second) 1977. A link to the text.

Several commenters can be found with The Google, but this one seemed the most useful start.

Elements of an Intrusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project:

Friday, February 21, 2014

Don Howard and Mark P. Mills: Punch the Accelerator on Self-Driving Cars -

Don Howard and Mark P. Mills: Punch the Accelerator on Self-Driving Cars -

"The self-driving-car solution is clear. Congress should pre-empt NHSTA and the trial lawyers and pass a National Autonomous Vehicle Injury Act. The Fords and Nissans and Googles and Qualcomms should voluntarily create an Autonomous Vehicle Event Reporting System. And industry players should also create a National Autonomous Vehicle Compensation System. (Vaccine compensation is funded with a de minimis tax on each dose.) "

Drones and robots should be included.

State v. Walton, Haw: Supreme Court 2014 - Google Scholar

State v. Walton, Haw: Supreme Court 2014 - Google Scholar

Soon and inevitably to come are overflights by drones — will they be too numerous in number to sustain a claim of any expectation of privacy? See Jonathan Olivito, Note, Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Limiting Drone Surveillance Through the Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 669, 687 (2013).

Crime, Surveillance, and Communities by I. Bennett Capers :: SSRN

Crime, Surveillance, and Communities by I. Bennett Capers :: SSRN


Quite simply, we have become a surveillance state. Cameras — both those controlled by the state, and those installed by private entities — watch our every move, at least in public. For the most part, this public surveillance is unregulated, beyond the purview of the Fourth Amendment, and to many civil libertarians, should signal alarm. This Article challenges these assumptions, and suggests that in thinking about surveillance cameras and other technologies, we must listen to communities. For many communities, public surveillance not only has the benefit for deterring crime and aiding in the apprehension of criminals. In these communities, public surveillance can also function to monitor the police, reduce racial profiling, curb police brutality, and ultimately increase perceptions of legitimacy. The question thus becomes, not how we can use the Fourth Amendment to limit public surveillance, but rather how can we use the Fourth Amendment to harness public surveillance’s full potential.

40 Fordham Urban Law Journal 2012-2013 Community Control over Camera Surveillance: A Response to Bennett Capers's Crime, Surveillance, and Communities Cooper-Walsh Colloquium Legitimacy and Order: Analyzing Police-Citizen Interactions in the Urban Landscape

40 Fordham Urban Law Journal 2012-2013 Community Control over Camera Surveillance: A Response to Bennett Capers's Crime, Surveillance, and Communities Cooper-Walsh Colloquium Legitimacy and Order: Analyzing Police-Citizen Interactions in the Urban Landscape

Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity by Christopher Slobogin :: SSRN

Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity by Christopher Slobogin :: SSRN


Government-sponsored camera surveillance of public streets and other public places is pervasive in the United Kingdom and is increasingly popular in American urban centers, especially in the wake of 9/11. Yet legal regulation of this surveillance is virtually non-existent, in part because the Supreme Court has signalled that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This article, written for a symposium on the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and technology, contests that stance, at the same time it questions whether the traditional, "probable-cause-forever" view of Fourth Amendment protections makes sense in this technological age. Based on an analysis of the panoptic effects of government camera surveillance – among them "anticipatory conformity," fear that private facts will be exposed, and possible decreased loyalty to a surveillance-driven government – this article first argues that the courts should recognize a constitutional right to anonymity in public places. Although courts have rejected constitutional challenges to public camera surveillance, they have yet to address the constitutionality of overt camera *systems*, with zoom and nightvision capacity and the storage and dissemination advantages that digitization brings. Such camera surveillance can chill speech and association, infringe on the rights to movement and repose, and undermine the general right to privacy. It also infringes the Fourth Amendment interest in avoiding unregulated government intrusions. To bolster the latter point, the article reports a study I conducted to ascertain the relative intrusiveness of overt, systematic camera surveillance in the eyes of the public. The results of a survey of almost 200 prospective jurors indicate that camera surveillance is viewed as more intrusive, to a statistically significant degree, than a number of investigative techniques the Supreme Court has found to implicate the Fourth Amendment, including roadblocks.

Building on this latter finding, the article relies heavily on the Court's roadblock jurisprudence in constructing a framework for regulating public camera surveillance. The Court's recent decision in Edmond v. Indianopolis held that a brief seizure at a roadblock set up with the primary purpose of detecting crime may not take place in the absence of individualized suspicion, a significant, difficult-to-detect crime problem (such as illegal immigration), or a crime problem that immediately threatens life and limb (such as drunk driving). The article argues that this caselaw should be read to limit camera systems to areas where a significant crime problem exists, and to require individualized suspicion for targeted camera surveillance. Based on Fourth Amendment and related constitutional jurisprudence, it also contends that the camera location decision must be made by politically accountable officials with public input, that rules governing notice of the surveillance and maintenance and disclosure of surveillance results are mandatory, and that accountability requires direct sanctions on those who violate these rules and periodic dissemination of information about surveillance practices. The article concludes with the suggestion that the traditional Fourth Amendment model – requiring probable cause, backed by the exclusion remedy – serves neither societal or individual interests well. Surveillance of large numbers of people cannot be justified at the probable cause level, and should not have to be. Nor is the suppression remedy an effective deterrent in this context, since at best it benefits an infinitesimally small number of people subjected to illegal surveillance, and in any event is a poor remedial fit with the types of violations that public surveillance is likely to involve. The dissonance between public surveillance and the individualized suspicion/exclusionary rule model suggests a need for rethinking both
the type of justification and the manner of implementation the Fourth
Amendment requires.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

C-SPAN | Oklahoma State University Unmanned Aerial Systems

C-SPAN | Oklahoma State University Unmanned Aerial Systems

Oklahoma State University Professor Jamey Jacob talked about the
university’s unmanned aerial systems degree program, which
has students designing drones in an effort to better understand
weather system

Gordon Crovitz: The Power Grid: Our Achilles' Heel -

Gordon Crovitz: The Power Grid: Our Achilles' Heel -

Surveillance drones could be deployed 24/7 around especially sensitive
facilities. The need for cheap, reliable drones is another reason the
Federal Aviation Administration should legalize commercial uses of
drones, which would accelerate their development.

Missouri House Bill 1204 to the Rules Committee

 Missouri House Bill 1204 has been sent to the Rules Committee. A a link to the House's webpage for the bill

Missouri House of Representatives

The bill proclaims its passage will enact The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act. It prohibits the use of drones or other unmanned aircraft from gathering evidence or other information with specified exceptions

Drone Free St. Louis

Drone Free St. Louis: has been formed. It is an organization for people concerned about inappropriate police use of drones.