New Hampshire: Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government

[sailingaway]

AGBeat: "Neal Kurk (R), member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives since 1986 has recently sponsored HB 619-FN to make aerial photography illegal in their state."

The proposed bill states:

A
person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals.

I can see where ANY could be intrusive of privacy at some magnification, but it is government that should be most restricted for 4th amendment and 9th amendment reasons, imho.

[Anti Federalist]

A good start.

Google, start deleting, now.

[ItsTime]

Why stop there? They should ban photography on the ground as well. Only the government should have the power to take pictures in public....

[Keith and stuff]

There is a more recent take on the issue. The amended bill doesn't ban very much but what it does ban is likely stuff that should be banned. Of course, even if no one amends the bill again and it eventually passed, governments and for profit companies still need federal permission to use drones. Whereas in many cases, private individuals are able to use drones without government permission. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405985-NH-HB399-The-NH-Liberty-Act-to-nullify-NDAA&p=4899534&viewfull=1#post4899534

[DamianTV]

Does this mean that everyone at Google is now going to jail due to Google Earth?

[KingNothing]

A good start.

Google, start deleting, now.


I can't tell if you're kidding, or an idiot.

[Anti Federalist]

I can't tell if you're kidding, or an idiot.

Call me an idiot.

Every person at Google taking pictures of my home and property without my consent and permission should be subject to immediate sanctions, both civil and criminal, to cease and desist.

Fuck you very much.

[KingNothing]

Call me an idiot.

Every person at Google taking pictures of my home and property without my consent and permission should be subject to immediate sanctions, both civil and criminal, to cease and desist.

Fuck you very much.


Idiot, you do know that photographs don't capture your soul, right?

[Anti Federalist]

Idiot, you do know that photographs don't capture your soul, right?

I thought you were all about private property rights.

Sorry to see I was wrong about that.

[DamianTV]

Idiot, you do know that photographs don't capture your soul, right?

But if they catch you in the act of doing something that is completely fucking illegal, like drinking beer (soon), smoking a cigarette (soon), or smoking a joint (now), your ass is going to jail. No privacy is totally harmless, right?

[KingNothing]

I thought you were all about private property rights.

Sorry to see I was wrong about that.


You don't have a right to tell people not to look at your house.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XutwkruACsA&feature=youtu.be&t=1m13s

Marty DiBergi: Can I look at it?
Nigel Tufnel: No. no. That's it, you've seen enough of that one.

[KingNothing]

But if they catch you in the act of doing something that is completely fucking illegal, like drinking beer (soon), smoking a cigarette (soon), or smoking a joint (now), your ass is going to jail. No privacy is totally harmless, right?

The problem is those things becoming illegal, not the inability to cover your home in a shroud of invisibility, or the legality of taking a picture of your roof.

[Anti Federalist]

You don't have a right to tell people not to look at your house.

Of course I do.

Images and information about it.

It's mine, right?

[Anti Federalist]

The problem is those things becoming illegal, not the inability to cover your home in a shroud of invisibility, or the legality of taking a picture of your roof.

So it's the illegality of it a thing, that determines whether you have property (or privacy) rights?

So, posting pictures of you playing with yourself in the shower are OK then?

[KingNothing]

Of course I do.

Images and information about it.

It's mine, right?

If it can be viewed from public? No, I'd say that you do not in any way shape or form own images of it. If someone can see it, why shouldn't they be able to capture that image? Or do you also demand that people avert their gaze as they drive or walk passed your house?

[Anti Federalist]

If it can be viewed from public? No, I'd say that you do not in any way shape or form own images of it. If someone can see it, why shouldn't they be able to capture that image?

You cannot publicly view my back woods lot without a government subsidized satellite image.

[Anti Federalist]

So when I asked if you were an idiot, and you said "call me an idiot" you weren't kidding. You really are an idiot. You really see no difference between taking a picture of the exterior of a house that can be viewed in public, and taking a picture of someone in the shower where they have an expectation of privacy? YOU are the one who is failing to understand property and privacy rights in this instance.

Oh, so our privacy and property rights are defined by a failed SCOTUS decision?

So then, you have no problem with cops snooping around in your yard looking for pot plants, because, there is no expectation of privacy there, correct?

[noneedtoaggress]

Of course I do.

Images and information about it.

It's mine, right?

The physical material is yours to control.

Looking at a house isn't trespassing. You don't hold ownership rights over the photons bouncing off your property, or the information those photons contain about the materials they bounced off.

Now whether someone can come into your property and take pictures of the inside of your house is a different matter entirely as it would require your permission to enter your property get an unobstructed view.

[KingNothing]

You cannot publicly view my back woods lot without a government subsidized satellite image.


Or a helicopter, balloon, or airplane ride.

I imagine that this is something that would have to be handled on a case by case basis as far as privacy rights are concerned, but from an (intellectual) property rights perspective, your stance is unlibertarian.

[noneedtoaggress]

also


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

[Matt Collins]

There is a ton of legitimate uses for civilian drones:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/ff_drones/all/

[Anti Federalist]

The physical material is yours to control.

Looking at a house isn't trespassing. You don't hold ownership rights over the photons bouncing off your property, or the information those photons contain about the materials they bounced off.

Now whether someone can come into your property and take pictures of the inside of your house is a different matter entirely as it would require your permission to enter your property get an unobstructed view.

So I don't "own" the heat waves that you used to get an unobstructed view inside my home without my consent or permission?

Or the radio waves that were used for radar scan?

[Keith and stuff]

Just to make sure everyone is clear. The link Sailing posted is wrong. This isn't a bad bill. It is a good bill. It is something to celebrate and be thankful for. Please cheer NH for this great bill. If you are still confused, read the Union Leader article about it. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130228/NEWS06/130229030

I agree it isn't a perfect bill but it's a great step in the right direction. I will feel safer once the bill becomes laws. If you have an issue with the bill, please contact the sponsor. Once the amended version of the bill is posted online, I'll post the text and the sponsor's contact info.

It's unfortunate that this thread, based on wrong info has mislead people here.

[Anti Federalist]

No. Why are you confusing property rights and privacy rights? I don't have an expectation of privacy when I'm in my yard, but I do have a right to tell people to get off my lawn.

Your argument boils down to having the right to tell people not to look at your house. Even you, bombastic idiot that you are, must realize how silly that is. Right?

LOL - stop drooling on yourself.

I'm just asking harmless questions.

So, if the cop just sits on the curb taking pictures all day, that's OK, right?

[MelissaWV]

C'mon guys. They're just photos. Laugh it off.

[Anti Federalist]

Just to make sure everyone is clear. The link Sailing posted is wrong. This isn't a bad bill. It is a good bill. It is something to celebrate and be thankful for. Please cheer NH for this great bill. If you are still confused, read the Union Leader article about it. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130228/NEWS06/130229030

I agree it isn't a perfect bill but it's a great step in the right direction. I will feel safer once the bill becomes laws. If you have an issue with the bill, please contact the sponsor. Once the amended version of the bill is posted online, I'll post the text and the sponsor's contact info.

It's unfortunate that this thread, based on wrong info has mislead people here.

LOL - You're right Keith, I'm just having some fun with a resident jackass.

Tell you what, why not post the full UL article in its own thread?

[Keith and stuff]

There is a ton of legitimate uses for civilian drones:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/ff_drones/all/

Absolutely. Including companies in NH. Drones can be great and this bill hardly limits civilian drone use at all. Everyone at Porcfest 2012 remembers the drone. I remember playing with drones as a kid, as do millions of people, I'm sure.

[noneedtoaggress]

So I don't "own" the heat waves that you used to get an unobstructed view inside my home without my consent or permission?

Or the radio waves that were used for radar scan?

No, actually, you don't. That certainly creates privacy issues, just as much as looking at what someone's doing in their yard creates privacy issues if you don't take proper precautions.

If you want to stop people from looking at what you're doing in your yard, build a fence. If you don't want your heat signature escaping, you need to properly insulate your walls or take whatever other precautions are available. If there's plenty of demand for insulation from heat signatures you have a market and can make a nice profit from producing things for other people to meet their needs.

Your security is your responsibility to maintain to the level you feel makes you secure. If you want to feel more privacy you're going to have to build a more private environment for yourself.

[Tod]

I figure if I don't put a wall around it (or a roof over it), I can have no expectation of privacy.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/34411_1359949812658_5635323_n.jpg

[KingNothing]

So I don't "own" the heat waves that you used to get an unobstructed view inside my home without my consent or permission?

Or the radio waves that were used for radar scan?

What are you talking about? No, you don't own these things. You have a right to privacy, though. "Owning" the excessive amount of hot air that your body no doubt exudes is a silly proposition, but saying that you have a right to privacy is not -- people shouldn't be allowed to use technology to effectively look inside your home.

[kcchiefs6465]

A good start.

Google, start deleting, now.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4491801/jack-o.gif (http://gifsoup.com/view/4491801/jack.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com)

[Anti Federalist]

No, actually, you don't. That certainly creates privacy issues, just as much as looking at what someone's doing in their yard creates privacy issues if you don't take proper precautions.

If you want to stop people from looking at what you're doing in your yard, build a fence. If you don't want your heat signature escaping, you need to properly insulate your walls.

Your security is your responsibility to maintain to the level you feel makes you secure. If you want to feel more privacy you're going to have to build a more private environment for yourself.

The technology exists to look through a lead bunker, so what you are suggesting is that privacy and being able to "keep to yourself" is DOA.

The rigidity of this position will result in the loss of all privacy.

You have, to use the example of the failed safe crackers, "blown up the money".

[KingNothing]

LOL - stop drooling on yourself.

I'm just asking harmless questions.

So, if the cop just sits on the curb taking pictures all day, that's OK, right?


Of the outside of a house? Yes, though I imagine there could be where this would amount to harassment or intimidation.

[MelissaWV]

This thread is friggin' hilarious.

[Anti Federalist]

People shouldn't be allowed to use technology to effectively look inside your home.

Why?

I don't own the heat waves, radio waves or anything else, any more than I own the photons of visible light.

The position you have taken allows for no line of demarcation between the two.

Other than law and tradition and arbitrary "saying so".

[noneedtoaggress]

The technology exists to look through a lead bunker, so what you are suggesting is that privacy and being able to "keep to yourself" is DOA.

The rigidity of this position will result in the loss of all privacy.

You have, to use the example of the failed safe crackers, "blown up the money".

Just because that technology exists today doesn't mean that it won't be counteracted against tomorrow.

[Anti Federalist]

Just because that technology exists today doesn't mean that it won't be counteracted against tomorrow.
In the meantime, until such time as it does exist, and is affordable, and is not banned by government, I'm shit outta luck then, right?

All that to protect the "right" of Screwggle to spy on all of us.

SMH...

[KingNothing]

Why?

I don't own the heat waves, radio waves or anything else, any more than I own the photons of visible light.

The position you have taken allows for no line of demarcation between the two.

Other than law and tradition and arbitrary "saying so".

No, Idiot. If I'm walking down the street, I can look at a house. If I'm flying, I can see a home. I can't see into a house without the assistance of technology. I'd have to go out of my way to effectively get around the things that people do to maintain levels of privacy. I'm not advocating that this be legalized.

You're taking this to an absurd, bombastic, extreme and confusing several different issues, as idiots tend to do.

[Anti Federalist]

No, Idiot. If I'm walking down the street, I can look at a house. If I'm flying, I can see a home. I can't see into a house without the assistance of technology. I'd have to go out of my way to effectively get around the things that people do to maintain levels of privacy. I'm not advocating that this be legalized.

You're taking this to an absurd, bombastic, extreme and confusing several different issues, as idiots tend to do.

As can I.

You cannot duplicate that image, save it and spread it around the world without technology.

[noneedtoaggress]

In the meantime, until such time as it does exist, and is affordable, and is not banned by government, I'm shit outta luck then, right?

All that to protect the "right" of Screwggle to spy on all of us.

SMH...

AF, man, you know that you're pretty much shit out of luck with generally everything the government does, period. They don't give a fuck about anything but control and power, much less serving their "customers".

Privacy issues are and will continue to be problematic as technology grows. That's going to be a big controversial hot topic, which is probably going to result in the downfall of plenty of organizations who lose support over perceived abuses. The government has far too much power to get away with what it does, and that won't stop until there is fundamental changes to how people look at and understand it and it's function.

[KingNothing]

As can I.

You cannot duplicate that image, save it and spread it around the world without technology.


If I'm eloquent enough, I can paint the picture with spoken word. If I'm artistic enough, I draw a picture or build a model. But that is unnecessary -- photography is such a ubiquitous technology that it is totally irrational to rail against it. You've got to assume that if someone can see something, they can/will photograph it.

[Anti Federalist]

AF, man, you know that you're pretty much shit out of luck with generally everything the government does, period. They don't give a fuck about anything but control and power, much less serving their "customers".

Privacy issues are and will continue to be problematic as technology grows. That's going to be a big controversial hot topic, which is probably going to result in the downfall of plenty of organizations who lose support over perceived abuses. The government has far too much power to get away with what it does, and that won't stop until there is fundamental changes to how people look at and understand it and it's function.

I do...and yeah, we're all boned until that time comes, probably too late.

I know my position here is counter-intuitive, but I steadfastly maintain that whether it is government or a "private" company doing it, wholesale and widespread surveillance is the death of liberty, and I am not afraid of using force of law to enforce limitations on that surveillance.

[Anti Federalist]

If I'm eloquent enough, I can paint the picture with spoken word. If I'm artistic enough, I draw a picture or build a model. But that is unnecessary -- photography is such a ubiquitous technology that it is totally irrational to rail against it. You've got to assume that if someone can see something, they can/will photograph it.

I'm not railing against photography.

I'm railing against placing those images in a massive, global, searchable database, for anybody to look at, including government, without my permission or consent.

[noneedtoaggress]

I do...and yeah, we're all boned until that time comes, probably too late.

I know my position here is counter-intuitive, but I steadfastly maintain that whether it is government or a "private" company doing it, wholesale and widespread surveillance is the death of liberty, and I am not afraid of using force of law to enforce limitations on that surveillance.

I won't exactly disagree with you there, either. It's just that to me, consumers have MUCH more control over private organizations than governments. When consumers demand privacy in a big way, they'll get more privacy. It would take so, so, so much more to get the very same demands for privacy met from the gov monopoly who will obstruct and do it in the name of the security of the very people they are spying on.

Technology is happening and it's not stoppable, it's inevitable. The point is to keep tabs and decentralize power in a way that it's gives us, the consumers, the most control over our own lives, including our privacy.

[Anti Federalist]

I won't exactly disagree with you there, either. It's just that to me, consumers have MUCH more control over private organizations than governments. When consumers demand privacy in a big way, they get privacy. It would take so, so, so much more to get the very same demands for privacy met from the gov.

Technology is coming and it's not stoppable, it's inevitable. The point is to keep tabs and decentralize power in a way that it's gives us, the consumers, the most control over our own lives, including our privacy.

I agree.

And having to get my consent before putting images of my private property in their database, for anybody in the world look at, is one way of doing so.

;)

[KingNothing]

I'm not railing against photography.

I'm railing against placing those images in a massive, global, searchable database, for anybody to look at, including government, without my permission or consent.

You aren't interesting enough to be discovered in that database.

[Anti Federalist]

You aren't interesting enough to be discovered in that database.

When all else fails, insult...isn't that right?

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree.

And having to get my consent before putting images of my private property in their database, for anybody in the world look at, is one way of doing so.

;)

Let me also just point out the difference between the more positive aspects of widespread decentralized "surveillance": YouTubed cell phone cameras catching both cops and criminals in violent criminal acts.

And more centralized surveillance: Gov helicopters spying on your back yard for marijuana plants because central government and political edicts have declared this property to be illegal to possess.

It's all about power and centralization.

[KingNothing]

When all else fails, insult...isn't that right?


What's the point of continuing? You're upset that information is being collected. Fine. I agree that it could lead to negative things, but I don't believe it will and I'd wager a large sum of money that neither you nor I will be harmed in any way shape or form by others taking pictures and organizing them, as they are free to do.

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree.

And having to get my consent before putting images of my private property in their database, for anybody in the world look at, is one way of doing so.

;)

Yeah but it's not so clear cut, because, as I said, you don't actually own the photons that bounce of your property. There may be a point in time where, after a lot of people get burned by current organizations over perceived privacy abuses, a generation of organizations grow to compete on the grounds of being founded on higher principles of privacy. If consumers demand privacy, then they will be provided with privacy. That's what competition and the market is all about. Involving govt can only mess with those incentives as govt will likely want to collude to collect data for control purposes and has some power to insulate it's friends along with itself with it's power.

Privacy is actually a pretty hot button issue nowadays. There's already a thriving market for encryption and privacy-oriented software. Many IT organizations like Facebook and Google today are criticized for their practices when it comes to something as "innocuous" as collecting data for targeted ads, and you have more things like Tor and Bitcoin and whatnot popping up, but aren't really user friendly enough for widespread adoption (among some other issues). It's already a big enough issue for entrepreneurs to understand that there is plenty of demand for it, and that demand will likely only grow as technology makes it easier and easier to collect information that people may find too intrusive.

[donnay]

What's the point of continuing? You're upset that information is being collected. Fine. I agree that it could lead to negative things, but I don't believe it will and I'd wager a large sum of money that neither you nor I will be harmed in any way shape or form by others taking pictures and organizing them, as they are free to do.

Except when they take your photo and use it for target practice, like DHS is doing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lfxa2xXonc

[kcchiefs6465]

Let me also just point out the difference between the more positive aspects of widespread decentralized "surveillance": YouTubed cell phone cameras catching both cops and criminals in violent criminal acts.

And more centralized surveillance: Gov helicopters spying on your back yard for marijuana plants because central government and political edicts have declared this property to be illegal to possess.

It's all about power and centralization.
I see both your's and AF's side of this. On one hand private entities and corporations can abuse rights just as much as the government. [especially when there is collusion] On the other hand what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? [for the record, I think you are entitled to privacy in and around your land. We don't need civilian drones taking pictures of women sunbathing as much as we don't need government drones searching for 'abnormal' heat signatures] It comes down to what can be proposed to eliminate it or at least limit it. Of course the laws could and should be changed to such that you can grow marijuana should you want, or anything, on your property so long as it isn't violating anyone else's person. Seeing that that doesn't seem to be viable at the moment, precautions should be in place to limit the kind of aerial photography that can occur. I'm not talking about the plane that simply flies overhead. I'm talking the low altitude drone that 'hovers' around your property for extended periods of time. Sure, no laws, that's all fine and dandy. Don't complain to me when I shoot one of your little 'toys' out of the sky.

[Matt Collins]

The Photographer's Bill of Rights:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Anti Federalist]

What's the point of continuing? You're upset that information is being collected. Fine. I agree that it could lead to negative things, but I don't believe it will and I'd wager a large sum of money that neither you nor I will be harmed in any way shape or form by others taking pictures and organizing them, as they are free to do.

That is called "surveillance".

And if you are betting that surveillance will not be used to hurt "us", I will take that bet.

Trouble is, neither one of us will be in a position to collect.

[noneedtoaggress]

I see both your's and AF's side of this. On one hand private entities and corporations can abuse rights just as much as the government. [especially when there is collusion] On the other hand what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? [for the record, I think you are entitled to privacy in and around your land. We don't need civilian drones taking pictures of women sunbathing as much as we don't need government drones searching for 'abnormal' heat signatures] It comes down to what can be proposed to eliminate it or at least limit it. Of course the laws could and should be changed to such that you can grow marijuana should you want, or anything, on your property so long as it isn't violating anyone else's person. Seeing that that doesn't seem to be viable at the moment, precautions should be in place to limit the kind of aerial photography that can occur. I'm not talking about the plane that simply flies overhead. I'm talking the low altitude drone that 'hovers' around your property for extended periods of time. Sure, no laws, that all fine and dandy. Don't complain to me when I shoot one of your little 'toys' out of the sky.

Yeah, I'm not in any way trying to say that private organizations can't abuse privacy. But Google never bombed Pakistani children with armed drones, and if they did I guarantee they would lose a significant number of their customers. That doesn't mean Google does everything right either, but the more it does something percieved as wrong or abusive by it's customers, the easier it will be for competing services to claim their market share. And beyond that, the more people recognize that their privacy is being taken and can be used against them, the more they will demand products and services that will protect them in that regard.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, I'm not in any way trying to say that private organizations can't abuse privacy. But Google never bombed Pakistani children with armed drones, and if they did I guarantee they would lose a significant number of their customers. That doesn't mean Google does everything right either, but the more it does something percieved as wrong or abusive by it's customers, the easier it will be for competing services to claim their market share. And beyond that, the more people recognize that their privacy is being taken and can be used against them, the more they will demand products and services that will protect them in that regard.
Well not to go off topic too much, but do you think people boycotted IBM with regards to Trailblazer? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project) People are by and large ignorant to what is going on around them besides what they are told. When you have a corporate entity protected by another corporate entity [the MSM] things get a little tricky. Especially when there is subsidies and government monies floating around. Not to mention the campaign contributions and questionable ties of said corporations to our politicians. It is a recipe for disaster. I understand that you are against these things. I am simply pointing out what could and what has happened. The average American does not know the controversies surrounding Coca Cola every time they buy a pop. In that same sense, people do not know the controversies of Google every time they search for something. For the average American already preconsumed and preconditioned with caring about petty bullshit, the propaganda is highly effective. You'd be amazed how big money [and old money alike] can buy you favorable recognition from the general public.

[noneedtoaggress]

Well not to go off topic too much, but do you think people boycotted IBM with regards to Trailblazer? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project) People are by and large ignorant to what is going on around them besides what they are told. When you have a corporate entity protected by another corporate entity [the MSM] things get a little tricky. Especially when there is subsidies and government monies floating around. Not to mention the campaign contributions and questionable ties of said corporations to our politicians. It is a recipe for disaster. I understand that you are against these things. I am simply pointing out what could and what has happened. The average American does not know the controversies surrounding Coca Cola every time they buy a pop. In that same sense, people do not know the controversies of Google every time they search for something. For the average American already preconsumed and preconditioned with caring about petty bullshit, the propaganda is highly effective. You'd be amazed how big money [and old money alike] can buy you favorable recognition from the general public.

I don't disagree with any of that. Especially when it comes to collusion with the state. While Google may not have dropped bombs in Pakistani children, that doesn't mean that private organizations wouldn't lobby to abuse government military power to expand their influence over the globe either, for instance.

I'm talking about the market as a process, as things get more decentralized it's harder for power to be abused, especially in large scale systematic ways. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in some regards. If people get burned because they didn't perceive what was going on around them, they will be more aware and will be more able to find alternatives and solutions on a free market. We're increasingly entering an age where information is spread faster and cheaper than ever before. There is some bad and tricky things that come along with that but there's also a lot of good. For instance:

On the flip side of the privacy issue and directly related to your concern is whistleblower organizations, such as wikileaks. This is an example of a market solution to a lot of the concerns you brought up. These organizations are JUST starting to pop up, and will allow people to be increasingly aware of those concerns. We can't even imagine what sort of services we'll have in the future, or how much awareness people will have about those sort of things that simply weren't logistically possible before.

[noneedtoaggress]

Another example concerning "corporate accountability" (obviously coming from a progressive perspective) that someone showed me not to long ago...

http://bizvizz.com/

But still applicable to the concerns you brought up.

[Keith and stuff]

Since this thread has been far gone since the 1st post, let me ad to the confusion.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485055_10151530767747780_1642433949_n.jpg

[Fox McCloud]

Of course I do.

Images and information about it.

It's mine, right?

The house is yours, the light that hits on it and reflects into other people's retinas is not; if someone is photographing you, your house, your property, etc. on (1)public property (2) Different private property that allows them to be at that location, then it's perfectly legitimate.

If this includes someone standing on some spit of land across from your property, then it's legitimate; if some corporation has built some satellite that can have high enough resolution to photograph you or your property, then its fair game.

Private property rights don't extend from your property to the center of the earth and all the way up to the sky; you have to homestead it for it to be yours.

[Anti Federalist]

Private property rights don't extend from your property to the center of the earth and all the way up to the sky; you have to homestead it for it to be yours.

So I own no minerals or water that may be beneath the surface of my property?

So then government/private water suppliers can regulate/use or block my water well, correct?


If this includes someone standing on some spit of land across from your property, then it's legitimate; if some corporation has built some satellite that can have high enough resolution to photograph you or your property, then its fair game.

So then if they build equipment that can look into and through my home, that's OK too?

[Fox McCloud]

So I own no minerals or water that may be beneath the surface of my property.

So then government/private water suppliers can regulate/use or block my water well, correct?

It depends on if you have homesteaded it or not; if you have homesteaded the water beneath your property (or oil or minerals, etc), then by all means its yours and if someone else is trying to profit from it, they're definitely stealing from you. That said, if there's a huge oil reserve (or mineral deposit, diamonds, water, whatever), and you haven't homestead it and some other person (likely adjacent to you) discovers it and can get to and harvest/mine that resource without it affecting your currently homsteaded property, then that's perfectly legitimate.



So then if they build equipment that can look into and through my home, that's OK too?

Correct. There is no explicit right to privacy (as you're thinking of it anyway---this is also Ron's position); there's a right to not be subject to unwarranted searches and seizures by authorities (ie: the state) though.

[Anti Federalist]

Correct. There is no explicit right to privacy (as you're thinking of it anyway---this is also Ron's position); there's a right to not be subject to unwarranted searches and seizures by authorities (ie: the state) though.

So, any level of surveillance is OK, just so long as it has some "private" label slapped on it?

If that's what Ron is saying, then he is flat out wrong on that, wrong as wrong can be.

[noneedtoaggress]

So I own no minerals or water that may be beneath the surface of my property?

So then government/private water suppliers can regulate/use or block my water well, correct?

A well already implies you've homesteaded the water = it's your property.

You don't really have a claim to ownership of a lava bed resting 20 miles underneath the your house, though. Not unless you mine for it yourself.

[Fox McCloud]

So, any level of surveillance is OK, just so long as it has some "private" label slapped on it?

If a private company wants to put up the funds (and somehow fund itself) to watch and conduct surveillance of an area, then, yes--likewise if you enter onto someone else's property.


If that's what Ron is saying, then he is flat out wrong on that, wrong as wrong can be.

You do realize Ron adheres to Lockean property rights, correct? The concept idea of "no right to privacy" is logically derived from that---there might be a few who still want/like/adhere to a "right to privacy", but doing so is a logical contradiction.

[noneedtoaggress]

So, any level of surveillance is OK, just so long as it has some "private" label slapped on it?

If that's what Ron is saying, then he is flat out wrong on that, wrong as wrong can be.

No one said abusing anyone's privacy was "OK" in the sense that it's a bad practice and one that should be criticized and publicly denounced.

If a store owner refused to serve people on the basis of their skin color it would also not be considered "OK" by most people even if it were within their right. They also would likely get a ton of shit for it and possibly go out of business. The libertarian position is that you don't have a right to force people to serve you on the basis of your skin color either, and such a "not OK" practice must be handled in other ways than force of law.

[Anti Federalist]

You do realize Ron adheres to Lockean property rights, correct? The concept idea of "no right to privacy" is logically derived from that---there might be a few who still want/like/adhere to a "right to privacy", but doing so is a logical contradiction.

So I have a right to Coca Cola's recipe?

I have a right to mine people's medical records?

I have right to watch your daughter in her bedroom?

[Anti Federalist]

No one said abusing anyone's privacy was "OK" in the sense that it's a bad practice and one that should be criticized and publicly denounced.

Life, liberty and property.

The only legitimate government is one that exists to protect those things.

My life, liberty and property is all at risk, if I can be put under full surveillance by anybody, at any time.

[Anti Federalist]

No one said abusing anyone's privacy was "OK" in the sense that it's a bad practice and one that should be criticized and publicly denounced.

And I'm really confused about that as well.

It doesn't seem that way to me.

In fact, it seems that some folks are all for it, like it might be an exciting new business venture that they could get rich at, and that it is perfectly OK.

[Anti Federalist]

damn dupes

[Stallheim]

No, Idiot. If I'm walking down the street, I can look at a house. If I'm flying, I can see a home. I can't see into a house without the assistance of technology. I'd have to go out of my way to effectively get around the things that people do to maintain levels of privacy. I'm not advocating that this be legalized.

You're taking this to an absurd, bombastic, extreme and confusing several different issues, as idiots tend to do.
I am a little confused about the distinction here, as I believe you would also need technology of some sort to fly over the house as well.

[noneedtoaggress]

So I have a right to Coca Cola's recipe?

I have a right to mine people's medical records?

I have right to watch your daughter in her bedroom?

Not having a right to stop all information that may be connected to you from being gathered, is not the same thing as having a right obtain any information you desire because you desire it.

[Natural Citizen]

also


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

Yet we're still stuck with the same outdated and recycled 50 year old pictures of the moon. :rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

You don't hold ownership rights over the photons bouncing off your property, or the information those photons contain about the materials they bounced off.

Now whether someone can come into your property and take pictures of the inside of your house is a different matter entirely as it would require your permission to enter your property get an unobstructed view.

So...can a feller assume that intellectual property rights work the same way? Because...well...I want to see how those theoretical photons work on my property. I want to know who is claiming IP with these trinkets and how. It's a rather interesting add-on that as long as the notion is "private" that it is deemed irrefutable. I think the old IP gag is the only loophole that keeps it out of courts.

Going to have to approach the squabble from a different perspective, methinks. Politically, one cannot dispute it because of the sheer corrupt loopholes that IP allows. Scientifically though it may be a different story. I could have sworn we've touched upon this somewhere before. Hmmm.

[Anti Federalist]

Not having a right to stop all information that may be connected to you from being gathered, is not the same thing as having a right obtain any information you desire because you desire it.

Look, honestly, I'm not trying to troll you here, but seriously, "desire" is the only litmus test?

So if I do get the information, it's OK, just so long as don't try too hard to get it?

Again, I'm sorry if it chaps some asses, but I'm all for this, as a NH resident I will urge my representatives to vote for this, I will make every effort to make sure it passes, and I have no problem at all with bringing the full force of the law against someone who violates my property and privacy without my consent or permission.

You guys will thank me, years from now, trust me, you do not want Lockheed Martin snooping around in your affairs.

[noneedtoaggress]

And I'm really confused about that as well.

It doesn't seem that way to me.

In fact, it seems that some folks are all for it, like it might be an exciting new business venture that they could get rich at, and that it is perfectly OK.

Right, I was generalizing people who were coming from my perspective. I'm not exactly sure if you're referring to anyone in this thread though or if you're talking about ventures like Facebook and Google. In which, privacy and perceived abuse of privacy is some pretty controversial topics with those companies, and that's over minor things like using data for targeted ads. It's a brave new world, this internet/modern-tech thing, and it's not going to come together perfectly overnight. Mistakes will be made, blurry lines will get thinner, and people will learn from it.

[Fox McCloud]

So I have a right to Coca Cola's recipe?

No, you have the right to attempt to discover it. Hypothetically, if you could invent a device that sees through everything and you gain knowledge of their recipe, then that was perfectly legitimate to do so.


I have a right to mine people's medical records?

Using the same device mentioned above, you can attempt to view them, but breaking into property/hacking? No, not at allowed. Likewise, if you're medical staff and you view the records then disseminate them, you'll probably get in trouble because it's likely covered under contract that medical records won't be directly revealed.


I have right to watch your daughter in her bedroom?

Not necessarily the right, per se---you can just attempt to do so without violating property rights. Likewise, the father can (like most) employ potential counter-measures as well.

[KingNothing]

Not necessarily the right, per se---you can just attempt to do so without violating property rights. Likewise, the father can (like most) employ potential counter-measures as well.


Right, but privacy laws would prohibit that activity.

[noneedtoaggress]

Look, honestly, I'm not trying to troll you here, but seriously, "desire" is the only litmus test?

So if I do get the information, it's OK, just so long as don't try too hard to get it?

Again, I'm sorry if it chaps some asses, but I'm all for this, as a NH resident I will urge my representatives to vote for this, I will make every effort to make sure it passes, and I have no problem at all with bringing the full force of the law against someone who violates my property and privacy without my consent or permission.

You guys will thank me, years from now, trust me, you do not want Lockheed Martin snooping around in your affairs.

The litmus test isn't desire, but whether it violates property rights or not. That's the litmus test for the use of force. All rights boil down to property rights. From property in your physical body extended to the objects you homestead, trade, or receive as gifts. You don't have the right to control information simply because it has an association with you. Doing so would require violating property rights.

Whether it's "OK" for you to have some particular information or not comes down to subjective views.
Whether it's "OK" to refuse service to someone as a property owner comes down to subjective views.

If the property owner is refusing service because you are causing a ruckus most people won't care. If they do it because your black, you might ignite a shitstorm of controversy which may bury your business, even if you were within your right to do so as a property owner.

I understand where you're coming from, I wouldn't want LM snooping around either. Of course, half the reason that sounds so detestable is because they are so integrated with government in the first place. They are probably going to be building the stuff that the gov is going to be snooping with anyway.

I don't think you're trying to troll me, and you have your own perspective on it. I do understand where you're coming from, though especially when you take into consideration practicality and the times we live in. I'm just trying to put my own perspective on it out there for consideration. I do understand where you're coming from, but my first concern is how we must be very careful when it comes to using government force for expedience.

[Anti Federalist]

No, you have the right to attempt to discover it. Hypothetically, if you could invent a device that sees through everything and you gain knowledge of their recipe, then that was perfectly legitimate to do so.

OK.


Using the same device mentioned above, you can attempt to view them, but breaking into property/hacking? No, not at allowed. Likewise, if you're medical staff and you view the records then disseminate them, you'll probably get in trouble because it's likely covered under contract that medical records won't be directly revealed.

Whoa, wait a minute. How is a device that reads medical records stored in a filing cabinet or computer any different than "hacking"?


Not necessarily the right, per se---you can just attempt to do so without violating property rights. Likewise, the father can (like most) employ potential counter-measures as well.

Why not? Once those photons bounce off her naked body, they don't belong to you anymore.

What countermeasures?

Are you suggesting using violence against somebody that is just collecting "free photons" that are randomly bouncing around?

[Anti Federalist]

No, the litmus test is whether it violates property rights or not.

Yes, I agree 100%.

I think my property rights are being violated when details of my property are being disseminated globally, for profit, without my consent or permission.

[KingNothing]

I don't understand why this is such a difficult issue:

The expectation of privacy is important. If someone is outside, they -in most cases- do not expect privacy. If people are in their homes, they do have an expectation of privacy and I hope we all fight to keep it that way.

If someone can just walk down the street or fly a toy helicopter with a camera attached to it to snap some pictures, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and it is completely ridiculous to assume you own the rights to whatever images other people see.

[Anti Federalist]

Last post of the night.

This does not become "OK", if you peel off the DHS label and slap on "General Electric" or "Google" or "L-1 Communications" on the side.

Period.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department's unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States' northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.

Homeland Security's specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they "shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not," meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify "signals interception" technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and "direction finding" technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security's requirements for its drone fleet through the Freedom of Information Act and published it this week. CNET unearthed an unredacted copy of the requirements that provides additional information about the aircraft's surveillance capabilities.

[KingNothing]

Yes, I agree 100%.

I think my property rights are being violated when details of my property are being disseminated globally, for profit, without my consent or permission.

"Details of your property" like the location of your house? How it looks? Really, dude? Those are trivial details and are easily obtained. Lord almighty, your IP address that you give away to a litany of people you'll never meet, every day, can effectively be used to determine that information. Drones aren't needed.

The information is all already there. It's all somewhere.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think you're trying to troll me, and you have your own perspective on it. I'm just trying to put mine out there for consideration. I do understand where you're coming from, but we must be careful when it comes to using government for expedience.

Again, agreed 100%.

I do not think this is expediant at all, in fact, I think this is the eleventh hour, frankly, and using government is a last resort, but if something isn't done soon, there will be no privacy anywhere, not even inside your own head.

[Anti Federalist]

"Details of your property" like the location of your house? How it looks? Really, dude? Those are trivial details and are easily obtained. Lord almighty, your IP address that you give away to a litany of people you'll never meet, every day, can effectively be used to determine that information. Drones aren't needed.

The information is all already there. It's all somewhere.

Track down the one I'm on right now.

You might be surprised...;)

Besides, just like a whole host of other "personal" issues that we freedom folks must align on: that's for me to decide, not you or anybody else.

[noneedtoaggress]

I think my property rights are being violated when details of my property are being disseminated globally, for profit, without my consent or permission.

Yeah, I understand. I'd disagree that your property rights are being violated but I understand your concern.


Last post of the night.

This does not become "OK", if you peel off the DHS label and slap on "General Electric" or "Google" or "L-1 Communications" on the side.

Period.

I'm with you there. I just don't think govt force is the solution.


I do not think this is expediant at all, in fact, I think this is the eleventh hour, frankly, and using government is a last resort, but if something isn't done soon, there will be no privacy anywhere, not even inside your own head.

Yeah, I can see that. I'm also with you on the vast majority of what you post, but sometimes little differences in perspective lead to pretty different responses. I fully understand your sense of urgency as well, but at the end of the day I've got a bit more general optimism due to my perspective, especially in the long run. I don't mean that in a naive way, as I'm sure you'll recognize that I'm more aware than most that we're in a pretty shit position here and for the foreseeable near future. But, for instance I see the liberating potential of technological advancement as a counterbalance to the potentially frighting oppressive ones, and ultimately there's a lot more liberating potential than oppressive.

[kcchiefs6465]

The house is yours, the light that hits on it and reflects into other people's retinas is not; if someone is photographing you, your house, your property, etc. on (1)public property (2) Different private property that allows them to be at that location, then it's perfectly legitimate.

If this includes someone standing on some spit of land across from your property, then it's legitimate; if some corporation has built some satellite that can have high enough resolution to photograph you or your property, then its fair game.

Private property rights don't extend from your property to the center of the earth and all the way up to the sky; you have to homestead it for it to be yours.
It is not so much about private property rights as much as it is about having a reasonable expectation of privacy. With regards to someone standing across from your home and filming your property that is an invasion of privacy and borders on harrassment. There would be some sort of injunction or such to make them stop. It's the same as when the police wants to install cameras on lightpoles. While they've gotten away with it in high crime areas there are specific rules they must adhere to. For one, they cannot be pointed towards a house. If there is a drone flying overhead how are you to know who's behind it? Let me say it another way. Say a drone has been videotaping your house for days on end. Your wife does not want to sunbathe anymore and your pool is off limits from any extra activites as a result. Said drone is actively infringing on your liberty. Who do you complain to? You can't tell who is operating the drone, if it's civilian, police, different colleges or whatever. You have no form of recourse as I see it.

It seems I need to start making spoofer software so I can make a killing in the upcoming years. That is where I agree with noneedtoaggress in that there is always a counter that's developed in the free market. Bugs in your house? Well now there's scanners to detect radio frequencies. The problem is that the technology against is always purposely less advanced than the technology they use. Especially with regards to the police and different agencies. Also there will be a gap. And while I don't see the average American circling your house with their drone you really never know. Might be some weirdo in the neighborhood who thinks your wife is hot. Maybe he wants to film her. You would have no idea this was the case. All you'd know is that a pesky little surveillance apparatus keeps circling your property. I'm not an expert on private property rights but I'd assume that you would own the airspace above your property. At least for so many feet. [Isn't that why airplanes fly so high? Because after so high it is public airspace? I'm not sure on that but I believe I've read something along those lines] With or without private property rights you have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would consider that not being filmed by a drone is in that reasonable expectation.

[Matt Collins]

Since this thread has been far gone since the 1st post, let me ad to the confusion.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485055_10151530767747780_1642433949_n.jpg








http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNP51hZtVI

[noneedtoaggress]

It is not so much about private property rights as much as it is about having a reasonable expectation of privacy. With regards to someone standing across from your home and filming your property that is an invasion of privacy and borders on harrassment. There would be some sort of injunction or such to make them stop. It's the same as when the police wants to install cameras on lightpoles. While they've gotten away with it in high crime areas there are specific rules they must adhere to. For one, they cannot be pointed towards a house. If there is a drone flying overhead how are you to know who's behind it? Let me say it another way. Say a drone has been videotaping your house for days on end. Your wife does not want to sunbathe anymore and your pool is off limits from any extra activites as a result. Said drone is actively infringing on your liberty. Who do you complain to? You can't tell who is operating the drone, if it's civilian, police, different colleges or whatever. You have no form of recourse as I see it.

So a lot of these problems are due to the fact that the entire system is messed up. Someone "standing across your home and filming your property" has the right to be there because the road/sidewalk he's on is "publically" owned and technically he has as much as right to use it for his filming things in public view as anyone else.

The police can't point cameras at people's houses and have specific rules because the state is utterly powerful, with a monopoly on "legitimate" force and the ability to "legally" infringe upon property rights, there are constitutional rules that attempt to limit that power, because it's so easily abused. Many times they're ignored anyway.

It's hard to tell what you even mean by a drone videotaping your house for days on end, but unless it's a small drone flying in space that's essentially part of your property, they are not infringing upon your liberty.

If you're bothered by people looking into your house the first solution would be to get curtains for your windows. You are primarily responsible for how private you want to feel. Privacy just like any other aspect of security is primarily your responsibility. If you want to feel REALLY secure where you live you can buy weapons, install gates, bunker, install a CCTV system, install an alarm, install a panic room, hire private security, etc, etc. and so on and so on. Relying on "the law" to protect you is foolish in the first place.

Privacy is just another aspect of this. If you want to feel privacy, you need to put up curtains. If there's enough demand to see through your windows looking out, curtains may become obsolete and you'll just have tinted windows and 1 way mirrors instead, or something even better. The person who initially wants to solve the problem of looking out through windows while others can't look in and develops things to solve this problem will make a profit due to demand for it. This is the market in action.

You don't have the right to be secure in the sense that you have the right to infringe upon other people's property rights in order to have security provided for you. You have the right to provide for your own security, and secure your property. Privacy is just another aspect of this. You don't have the right to go into people's houses and shoot them because you feel they may have be threatening to you at some point in the future and you just want to feel as secure as possible. You don't have the right to use force against people just to feel secure. You have the right to secure your property, and the right to control and arrange your property in ways that make you feel more secure, and make arrangements with other property owners in ways that will make everyone feel more secure.


The problem is that the technology against is always purposely less advanced than the technology they use. Especially with regards to the police and different agencies.

Technology doesn't really develop that way. The thing is the state is really powerful so it steals money to buy good equipment and attempts to legislate an advantage. But they simply exploit technological advancement in their favor by purchasing it, and lag behind technological advancement in their legislation. The state is a monstrously powerful, but slow and dumb beast. Those that get smacked by it are going to get hit hard, but technological development and numbers are ultimately not on their side. Their power 100% rests on consent and conformity to central authority. The more people that break away from that the less power they have.


With or without private property rights you have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

All rights boil down to property rights. When someone murders you they are claiming right to control (destroy) your property in your physical body. By saying your "right to privacy" is somehow outside that means that you have the right to infringe on property rights to secure your privacy.

Do homeless people have this right to privacy? Is their privacy in the property of their personal belongings or does that mean we can infringe upon other people's property rights and steal from them to give all homeless people "privacy cubes"? They have that right, don't they, if we're gonna infringe upon people's property rights to make sure everyone has adequate privacy, why not? If you're looking in the direction where a homeless person is sleeping do they have the right to use violence against you so that you can't view them anymore?

[kcchiefs6465]

You don't have the right to be secure in the sense that you have the right to infringe upon other people's property rights in order to have security provided for you. You have the right to provide for your own security, and secure your property. Privacy is just another aspect of this. You don't have the right to go into people's houses and shoot them because you feel they may have be threatening to you at some point in the future and you just want to feel as secure as possible. You don't have the right to use force against people just to feel secure. You have the right to secure your property, and the right to control and arrange your property in ways that make you feel more secure, and make arrangements with other property owners in ways that will make everyone feel more secure.

My issue is when you take all reasonable steps to ensure privacy and then now you have a drone flying overhead recording video or taking pictures. Putting up curtains [a reasonable measure to ensure privacy] is a lot different than building a covering for your entire property to make sure drones cannot record you. [an unreasonable expectation for privacy to be ensured] To me, it is that simple. When you are in your backyard, and you have a fence, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These drones infringe on that. [that is not to say every drone, simply the ones recording or taking pictures of your property and/or person] I would not be bothered by a surveyor drone flying overhead to record the topography. I would be bothered by Billy Bob nosy ass neighbor down the road who feels he has the right to watch me or my property. Pigs and all semi-related entities fall under this as well.



Do homeless people have this right to privacy? Is their privacy in the property of their personal belongings or does that mean we can infringe upon other people's property rights and steal from them to give all homeless people "privacy cubes"? They have that right, don't they, if we're gonna infringe upon people's property rights to make sure everyone has adequate privacy, why not? If you're looking in the direction where a homeless person is sleeping do they have the right to use violence against you so that you can't view them anymore?
Someone in the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If he builds a shanty, and takes reasonable measures for privacy, then yes. And again, I'd reiterate that this isn't about the drone simply glancing your way. [with regards to whether looking at a homeless man would make it okay for him to deliver a beating] It is about the abuse that would inevitibly occur. [whether private or public- whether it's the peeping pervert from down the block, or the police looking for abnormal heat signatures] Should someone continually follow around said homeless man, and record him against his wishes, I would not object to him using force to make the harrassment/invasion of privacy stop. Sometimes people need a good smack. With drones harrassing and impeding your liberty on your own property, you would have no recourse to stop them. You would not know their motives or who is operating it. Aside from shooting it out of the sky there would be nothing you could do. Drone surveillance forces one to change their habits and thus encroaches on their liberty. Whether they can't have some extra fun outside anymore, or if they want to smoke or drink, or if they are having a party, or skinny dipping.. Not to mention just wanting to be left the hell alone. There's a lot of scenarios where you want privacy in your backyard and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect as much.

Since property rights were mentioned what is your take on owning the airspace above your home? I recall reading [I think, anyways] that you do own so many feet of airspace above your property. Once you get above 10,000 ft [or whatever the exact number was] it becomes public airspace. Have you heard of this?

[Anti Federalist]

You would not know their motives or who is operating it. Aside from shooting it out of the sky there would be nothing you could do. Drone surveillance forces one to change their habits and thus encroaches on their liberty. Whether they can't have some extra fun outside anymore, or if they want to smoke or drink, or if they are having a party, or skinny dipping.. Not to mention just wanting to be left the hell alone. There's a lot of scenarios where you want privacy in your backyard and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect as much.

+rep

[noneedtoaggress]

My issue is when you take all reasonable steps to ensure privacy and then now you have a drone flying overhead recording video or taking pictures. Putting up curtains [a reasonable measure to ensure privacy] is a lot different than building a covering for your entire property to make sure drones cannot record you. [an unreasonable expectation for privacy to be ensured]

Since this discussion is so abstract and hypothetical it's going to be difficult to get into specifics. When I say the solution is to "put up a curtain" I don't mean literally put a tarp over your property (though it could be one method). I'm talking about blocking, disrupting, or distorting information you don't want visible in whatever manner is available to you to do so to make you feel as private as you need. This can include low tech to high tech solutions and anything in between. You can have anything from a single taser and some deadbolts to an armed fortress with security detail when it comes to providing for your security.

As far as "Billy Bob", his right to fly his little drone around depends on several factors, like where he's flying it (is it like 10 feet over your roof?), and contractual arrangements he's made, etc. If he's some jerk spying on all his neighbors, he's probably not going to feel very welcome in his community and some people may want to exercise their own rights in legitimate ways that might get him to think twice about what he's doing. If he really wants to spy he's going to try and be more concealed than flying a drone over people's houses that is still going to have to land and recharge.

If "Billy Bob", the store owner, was exercising his right to refuse service to a person based solely on their skin color, it would likely be considered abusive and offensive. The person being refused service may even try to argue that their rights are infringed and liberty threatened and that force of law should be applied in order to get the property owner to stop his abuse. That doesn't mean the property owner doesn't have that right. It means they're doing something socially unacceptable and should be handled in ways that don't include violating his own rights.


Someone in the public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If he builds a shanty, and takes reasonable measures for privacy, then yes. And again, I'd reiterate that this isn't about the drone simply glancing your way. [with regards to whether looking at a homeless man would make it okay for him to deliver a beating] It is about the abuse that would inevitibly occur. [whether private or public- whether it's the peeping pervert from down the block, or the police looking for abnormal heat signatures] Should someone continually follow around said homeless man, and record him against his wishes, I would not object to him using force to make the harrassment/invasion of privacy stop. Sometimes people need a good smack. With drones harrassing and impeding your liberty on your own property, you would have no recourse to stop them. You would not know their motives or who is operating it. Aside from shooting it out of the sky there would be nothing you could do. Drone surveillance forces one to change their habits and thus encroaches on their liberty. Whether they can't have some extra fun outside anymore, or if they want to smoke or drink, or if they are having a party, or skinny dipping.. Not to mention just wanting to be left the hell alone. There's a lot of scenarios where you want privacy in your backyard and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect as much.

I agree with you that people should have privacy. The homeless man building a shanty is exactly what I'm talking about. He's building a shelter for privacy and security from prying eyes and the elements of nature.

What is "harassment"? Is it harassment to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color? Is it harassment to run a publicity campaign against the store owner intending to destroying his reputation because you disagree with his actions? Where is the line? If it's socially unacceptable? What constitutes that? Do you have a right to stop people from making you uncomfortable?

Do people have the right to film in public? If people have the right to film in public where there is no expectation to privacy, then why can't they follow a homeless man around when they both have equal claim to the use of the public property? The whole situation is a convoluted mess, because public property itself defeats the purpose of property, which is to delineate use-rights to scarce resources.

Don't think I don't agree with you that people shouldn't be harassed and that people should respect privacy. I simply don't think infringing upon property rights is a proper means to achieve those ends.


Since property rights were mentioned what is your take on owning the airspace above your home? I recall reading [I think, anyways] that you do own so many feet of airspace above your property. Once you get above 10,000 ft [or whatever the exact number was] it becomes public airspace. Have you heard of this?

I don't have a take on it. My take is that property has boundaries and all rights are essentially property rights. If you own land you don't own the space below down to the core of the earth nor the space above into the stars. The legitimate way to extend your ownership is to homestead new property, or trade with others for their property, or have property gifted to you. If there is a dispute where property boundaries lie, that's something to be determined by courts. Over the course of dispute resolution those individual decisions create a pattern which is a basis for determining what is generally accepted.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g

NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD!


The 2010 census marked all our doors with GPS devices. Now we have to worry about drones. When we screamed up and down about this we were called conspiracy theorist--go figure.

Make your line in the sand and stick to it!

[KingNothing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g

NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD!


The 2010 census marked all our doors with GPS devices. Now we have to worry about drones. When we screamed up and down about this we were called conspiracy theorist--go figure.

Make your line in the sand and stick to it!



:rolleyes:

Because America is a lot like pre-War Germany.

[Anti Federalist]

:rolleyes:

Because America is a lot like pre-War Germany.

I'd say more like pre-collapse USSR myself.

[donnay]

:rolleyes:

Because America is a lot like pre-War Germany.


Guess you haven't been paying close attention their buckaroo.

"Those who do not study history are DOOMED to repeat it!"

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd say more like pre-collapse USSR myself.
This. Considering trends available, there will be a Chekha (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScheka.htm) (Чеха-Soviet secret police) with a seemingly benign American-ish name coming our way any day now. :( This is my prophecy based on what I know of Soviet history...a lot of Soviet-ish tactics have been adopted by the regime in recent decades... :( The future is fail.

[osan]

I can see where ANY could be intrusive of privacy at some magnification, but it is government that should be most restricted for 4th amendment and 9th amendment reasons, imho.


Heh... the "free state"... yeah... what a riot.

[Anti Federalist]

This. Considering trends available, there will be a Chekha (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScheka.htm) (Чеха-Soviet secret police) with a seemingly benign American-ish name coming our way any day now. :( This is my prophecy based on what I know of Soviet history...a lot of Soviet-ish tactics have been adopted by the regime in recent decades... :( The future is fail.

George Seldes wrote in 1929: "Because of the Cheka, freedom has ceased to exist in Russia. There is no democracy. It is not wanted. Only American apologists for the Soviets have ever pretended there was democracy in Russia.... Freedom, liberty, justice as we know it, democracy, all the fundamental human rights for which the world has been fighting for civilized centuries, have been abolished in Russia in order that the communist experiment might be made. They have been kept suppressed by the Cheka. The Cheka is the instrument of militant Communism. It is a great success. The terror is in the mind and marrow of the present generation and nothing but generations of freedom and liberty will ever root it out."

During the early stages of the Spanish Civil War, the Cheka was in Spain. Edward Knoblaugh reported: "Cars labeled CHEKA and carrying red or red and black flags patrolled everywhere, loaded with armed men on the lookout for Quinta Columna suspects. Their work was simplified by the fact that Spanish law requires citizens to carry identification cards giving age, description of bearer and place of residence. These could be checked against the political credentials supplied to Leftists in good standing with their respective parties. The raiders entered cafes, some standing guard in the doorway while the rest passed from table to table demanding to see everyone's credentials. Even army officers in uniform were not exempt... One device the Cheka employed in an effort to ferret out conspirators was to seize any two persons walking together, separate them quickly out of earshot of each other, and demand to know what they were talking about at the moment they were separated. The replies then would be checked against each other and if they failed to tally, the pair was arrested. Sometimes the sheer fright of being so seized made the victims stutter and forget what they had been talking about."

[heavenlyboy34]

George Seldes wrote in 1929: "Because of the Cheka, freedom has ceased to exist in Russia. There is no democracy. It is not wanted. Only American apologists for the Soviets have ever pretended there was democracy in Russia.... Freedom, liberty, justice as we know it, democracy, all the fundamental human rights for which the world has been fighting for civilized centuries, have been abolished in Russia in order that the communist experiment might be made. They have been kept suppressed by the Cheka. The Cheka is the instrument of militant Communism. It is a great success. The terror is in the mind and marrow of the present generation and nothing but generations of freedom and liberty will ever root it out."

During the early stages of the Spanish Civil War, the Cheka was in Spain. Edward Knoblaugh reported: "Cars labeled CHEKA and carrying red or red and black flags patrolled everywhere, loaded with armed men on the lookout for Quinta Columna suspects. Their work was simplified by the fact that Spanish law requires citizens to carry identification cards giving age, description of bearer and place of residence. These could be checked against the political credentials supplied to Leftists in good standing with their respective parties. The raiders entered cafes, some standing guard in the doorway while the rest passed from table to table demanding to see everyone's credentials. Even army officers in uniform were not exempt... One device the Cheka employed in an effort to ferret out conspirators was to seize any two persons walking together, separate them quickly out of earshot of each other, and demand to know what they were talking about at the moment they were separated. The replies then would be checked against each other and if they failed to tally, the pair was arrested. Sometimes the sheer fright of being so seized made the victims stutter and forget what they had been talking about."
Yep. :( I wish I had a documentary toob on this subject to help folks grasp the horror inflicted on regular people by the Chekha. :/ I encourage people to look into this bit of history because in many ways it's repeating itself here. :( :mad:

[Keith and stuff]

Some pro-liberty people had concerns with the amended version of the bill. They contacted the Committee after the Committee already voted on the bill and brought up the concerns. So, the bill was tabled, perhaps so it could be improved. The Committee is meeting tomorrow and might talk about the bill, unofficially.

Perhaps the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance also helped with the effort. Here is part of the Gold Standard that was given to ever legislature in NH House today. I don't completely agree with the NHLA's take on the bill but there is some good info in it.

HB 619-FN, prohibiting images of a person’s residence to be taken from the air.
HB 619 NAY on OTP
YEA ON RECOMMIT

Criminal Justice and Public Safety : 16 - 2 OTP
This bill prohibits recording images of individuals , their activities, and the interior of buildings , is anti-liberty:
• There is no demonstrated need for this legislation. It is designed to be preemptive, thus it cannot appropriately address problems which have not yet arisen.
• This bill makes it a criminal offense to take someone's picture, even inadvertently, with a drone without prior written consent. This will burden hobbyists and small business—such as aerial photography for real estate or farming.
• The NHLA supports restrictions on how governments may use drones; additional work could make this bill better.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b9cdf0ded03d47e9e5fb0920b/files/goldstandard_2013_03_13.pdf

[Keith and stuff]

Great news about this bill!
It was taken off the table because the chair of the Committee said the Committee had a new amendment to protect people with toy airplanes and so on. The amendment and bill will be voted on next week. If you want to know what the amendment says, ask a NH state rep. because I don't know or have a way of knowing at this point.

I am very excited this is moving forward. Hopefully the amendment is decent and passes and then the bill passes. It might not be 100% perfect but the Senate can work on it, if that is the case.
Happy, happy!
Joy, joy!

[Christian Liberty]

A good start.

Google, start deleting, now.

I don't know if I can agree with this, I don't see how its an infringement of property rights. If it were possible to take pictures through walls, I'd agree with a ban on that, since that at least goes through something designed to be a barrier to sight (Among other things.) But I don't see how you can have a true right to privacy outside.

Granted, this isn't a big deal to me, but I don't see why this is really fair...

Note that this is a "At first glance" response. I always am able to miss something.

[Anti Federalist]

Great news about this bill!
It was taken off the table because the chair of the Committee said the Committee had a new amendment to protect people with toy airplanes and so on. The amendment and bill will be voted on next week. If you want to know what the amendment says, ask a NH state rep. because I don't know or have a way of knowing at this point.

I am very excited this is moving forward. Hopefully the amendment is decent and passes and then the bill passes. It might not be 100% perfect but the Senate can work on it, if that is the case.
Happy, happy!
Joy, joy!

Good.

Emailed all the correct people.

Hope this passes.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't know if I can agree with this, I don't see how its an infringement of property rights. If it were possible to take pictures through walls, I'd agree with a ban on that, since that at least goes through something designed to be a barrier to sight (Among other things.) But I don't see how you can have a true right to privacy outside.

Granted, this isn't a big deal to me, but I don't see why this is really fair...

Note that this is a "At first glance" response. I always am able to miss something.

Many of the points have been addressed in this thread.

[Christian Liberty]

OK I'll read the whole thing.

I would be all for crossing out the "Everyone except" line and just not let the government do this...

[Keith and stuff]

OK I'll read the whole thing.

I would be all for crossing out the "Everyone except" line and just not let the government do this...
Sorry man. It's just that the person that created this thread didn't know much about the issue. He posted an article that was old news when it was posted and based on the 1st version of the bill. The bill is about to be in it's 3rd version and each version gets better. It is a pro-liberty bill.

[Christian Liberty]

Sorry man. It's just that the person that created this thread didn't know much about the issue. He posted an article that was old news when it was posted and based on the 1st version of the bill. The bill is about to be in it's 3rd version and each version gets better. It is a pro-liberty bill.

OK then, I don't know the particular details of the law, but just to give my take on everything I've read (I'm fairly middle of the road on the whole thing which means both sides will probably hate me, but oh well...)

Regardles the "Right to privacy." The very idea that someone doesn't have a right to look at your house, from their own property (Or other private property which they have been invited to be on, other than defensive military stations, jails for violent criminals, police stations, and courtrooms, there should be no such thing as public property) seems pretty clearly absurd, and would lead to a lot of legal absurdities. Simply looking should not be a crime.

I would even say the same about looking through a window in someone's house, although you might be a bit more of a jerk if you do that. They could fairly easily cover it up with curtains if they don't want people looking in. To criminalize this would just be a ridiculous government infringement. Yes, this means "Peeping Toms" wouldn't necessarily be subject to criminal prosecution. I don't see why this is such a horrifying situation. Use curtains. Granted, that's not to trivialize the fact that peeping tom's are jerks, but from a deontological standpoint, there's no reason that VIEWING someone's property is a violation of their property rights, and from a conseuentionist standpoint, there are greater inconveienices in pure libertarianism that I'm willing to accept for the sake of liberty than this.

That said, if someone puts up a concrete barrier, this seems a clear enough sign that they do not want to be disturbed. No longer could you theoretically (Maybe this isn't likely, but its certainly possible, and pretty much destroys the case for merely viewing to be illegal) violate someone's privacy by mere accident. It might be possible at some point (Maybe it is already, not sure) to see through someone's house with some kind of technology, but its not something you would do by pure accident, nor is there any reason you should have a right to do it.

So that's where I'd draw the line. You have a right to look at my house, but you don't have a right to look through an opaque barrier, even if technology at some point allows you to do so. The reason I draw this line? Its fairly easy to protect your privacy if someone is looking through an open window (Or only covered by a transparent window glass.) Use curtains. I don't see how its such a big privacy problem that you can look at someone's back yard (Without setting foot on their property) either.

Now, as for "Spying" on people through the air, as I said already, you shouldn't be able to look through someone's opaque walls, even if the technology exists to do so. However, I see no reason you can't look at something that they made no attempt to cover as long as you aren't violating their property rights. As for flying over their house, I'm not sure exactly how high a person has "Homesteaded" simply by building a house. Any aircraft flying close enough to the House to cause them inconvenience should not be allowed to do that simply because of homesteading Lockean property rights. Otherwise I see no real reason that a private individual could not take pictures by aircraft as long as that wasn't going through walls.

At the same point, I get the marijuana problem as well, although I don't see why this is a real problem at all. Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. Looking at, or taking a picture of, someone's (Revealed) marijuana shouldn't be either. The reality is, right now government does prosecute pot users and growers. THat's a problem that needs to be fixed. That problem isn't directly relevant to this.

As for GOVERNMENT spies, by all means, restrict them as much as possible. Government is different than a private entity because unlike private entitities, government is ALREADY threatening to use force against you wiithout just cause (I would argue a perfect minarchy would not fit this but that doesn't exist, and probably never will, so its a safe assumption). So, if all we can do is stop them from spying on pot growers, and you can't stop the laws against pot, well, whatever you can get is better than nothing.

[LibertyRevolution]

I have a car parked in my backyard, but it is against town codes to do so..
The image is there on google maps, so if the town was hard up for cash... just saying..
Yes I care because I am breaking some law, a stupid law telling me what I can and cannot do in my backyard..
We have 4 cars, yes I can put them all in the driveway, but then I have to play shuffle the cars, so it will continue to be parked in the backyard.

If I want to fly over people pools and take pics of chicks in bathing suits and upload them to the net.. that's cool right?
They got no exception of privacy, their pool is outside in their backyard..

[Keith and stuff]

Update. It was laid on the table in the House again. I wasn't watching or listening so I don't know why.

3/27/2013 H Laid on Table (Rep Berch): MA DIV 278-87

OK, the Union Leader covered this.


March 27. 2013 1:46PM
NH House tables bill to strictly regulate aerial drone use
ShareThis
CONCORD -- The House Wednesday tabled, and effectively killed, legislation forbidding the use of aerial drones in New Hampshire except by government officials with “credible evidence” that there is a high risk of a terrorist attack.

With several lawmakers saying the proposal raises issues that need to be clarified, the House voted to table it, 278-8.

After Thursday, it will take a two-thirds majority for the House to resurrect it.

Sponsored by long-time privacy advocate Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, would have also allowed drones if the government obtains a search warrant authorizing the use of a drone based on probable cause.

Kurk has said that with the influx of aerial photography from drones, the bill is necessary to protect personal privacy.

Otherwise, the bill says, the use of a drone is banned for surveillance without the consent of the person whose home, or who is personally, the subject of the surveillance.

The bill also bans the use of any drone equipped with any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon and bans the use of drones for hunting or stalking game.

Any government entity that owns or operates drones in the state must report to the attorney general, who must make that information public.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, wrote on behalf of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Majority that New Hampshire “may be the first state to pass a bill of this kind, but by a wide margin (of 16-2), the committee believes that we should be proud in going where no state has gone before.”

He wrote that the bill “could become a model for other states when it comes to regulating drones which, more and more as technology advances, could pose a threat to individual privacy.

“We delight in being in the forefront of stopping Big Brother from making inroads here,” Vaillancourt wrote.

But during debate, Rep. Paul Berch, D-Westmoreland, said the bill may conflict with federal.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130327/NEWS06/130329180

[robert9712000]

not sure what to think about this.We use aerial photography all the time in surveying.Though i guess as long as we can access the governments.It works great to overlay property plats with the Arial so i can find there property pins easier and when doing the mapping in autocad if i missed writing down what a sign said i can just get on google earth and look,instead of driving back out to the site

[osan]

The "free state".

Yeah, right.