By: Nathan Phillip
The topic of surveillance is a very common one in our class. Especially with the recent introduction of the police drones. The constant threat of an unmanned surveillance system watching your every move is a very draining and intrusive thought. Generally the idea has been brought up about how intrusive this is on our privacy, but with examples from law enforcement/ officials justifying its use to counteract crime. However in a story published by CBS St. Louis on April 7th lawmakers took a different stance. According to the article an Illinois senator Sen. Daniel Biss has introduced a peace of legislation that would limit the police use of drones for surveillance. This is to me not only very unique but much needed piece of legislator.
According to the article “Biss’ measure would require authorities to obtain a search warrant before using a drone to collect information. The bill includes exceptions, including when such surveillance is immediately needed to prevent a terrorist attack.” This is very important to me because it will help to prevent the targeting of certain individuals, as is the case in much police surveillance. There is no need for the police to be able to simply look into any law-abiding persons personal life as they would be able to without the passing of this legislation. To bring it back full circle to our class I feel like with the passing of such legislation it almost makes the police the ones being policed. In other words this would add a level of policing to the process of surveillance. The Police would not be able to just use these drones, first they must go through a court proves which in essence is policing their actions to ensure that they stay within the lines as well.
To build onto this it has been proven multiple times as we have pointed out in class that the constant threat of surveillance does not actually prevent crimes from taking place. In fact it only assist in the investigation. So with that being said there is really no need to have the immediate use of the drones for surveillance without a warrant except for certain cases. I also feel that this would be a good example of the police force has to adapt and change to the demands of both the community, and the law makers that they serve. In my eyes these laws are being written to prevent targeting of certain groups, and ensure fair treatment by the police. Even if they feel that this hinders their ability to police they will have to find a way to work with the laws to do their job.
Legislation, such as the one being presented by the Senator you mentioned above, should definitely be enacted in much larger numbers than we are seeing today. With the threat to our privacy as imminent as it is, and an intrusive government and police force that feel the need to invade every aspect of our lives, the judicial and legislative branches of our government need to outline the limits of this game and protect their citizens. Before the police force feels free to do whatever they deem necessary, the government should establish limits on power and the way they go about utilizing their power. Although the advantages of using drones is great, no amount of sovereignty should ever be given up for "protection." Crystal Eastman once said "a good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection." Protection is an easy scapegoat to push further one's political agenda.
ReplyDelete-- Dega Gebre
Interesting article Nathan! I agree that the unmanned drones should have limitations especially because they do not have the same discretion and capabilities human police do. The privacy of individuals must be protected and this legislation ensures that there is a system of checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteI think that this move is very important with the use of drones. This introduces important checks and balances, to govern the use of tools that can have a huge impact in our daily lives. I am interested to see what the outcome will be if it passes!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above post. The use of drones can be useful in apprehending criminals and preventing crime, but they should only be used in the same way that searching a home is possible, through the use of a search warrant. This causes the government to obtain legitimate probable cause in order to use a drone.
ReplyDelete-Eric Walbridge
"I also feel that this would be a good example of the police force has to adapt and change to the demands of both the community, and the law makers that they serve." I definitely agree with your insight. I think it is fascinating to say the least that the claim can be made that the legislators (voice of their constituents) are the police in this instance. That tricky question of "who are the police?" becomes even less clear when the police are themselves being policed. It will be interesting to see if more legislation like this one is brought to the forefront.
ReplyDelete-Amir