via Drudge: FBI to Rand: Domestic drone surveillance doesn’t require a warrant

[green73]

Drone surveillance in the United States does not require a warrant, but the practice remains limited, the FBI told Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in a letter after he placed a hold on James Comey’s nomination to be the new FBI director.

“[T]he FBI does not, and has no plans to use [unmanned aerial vehicles] to conduct general surveillance not related to a specific investigation or assessment,” Stephan Kelly, the assistant director at the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, wrote Paul.

Kelly said that UAVs, or drones, have only been used for surveillance in the United States 10 times since 2006, in cases related to “kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive investigations.”

cont
http://washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-to-rand-paul-domestic-drone-surveillance-doesnt-require-a-warrant/article/2533627

[69360]

The FBI is claiming that they don't need a warrant because the drone can only see what is in plain view. I disagree, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property. Say you put up a 8 foot stockade fence around your property or live deep in the woods with no other houses around. You have a reasonable expectation that nobody can see what you do on your property. A drone with a zoom camera violates that right to privacy. You are not in plain view to the general public.

[Brian4Liberty]

As I've said before, this battle was fought long ago with the invention of aircraft. Drones are no different than a plane, helicopter or satellite.

[69360]

It doesn't matter if it's a drone or an aircraft. If you can't see it with the human eye, you violated somebody's privacy and needed a warrant. Drones are also almost silent. With airplanes you know it's over you and that you don't have privacy.