California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Warrants For Drone Surveillance 115
schwit1 sends word that California governor Jerry Brown has vetoed legislation that would have required warrants for surveillance using unmanned drones. In his veto message (PDF), Brown said, "This bill prohibits law enforcement from using a drone without obtaining a search warrant, except in limited circumstances. There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."
The article notes that 10 other states already require a warrant for routine surveillance with a drone (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). Further, Brown's claims about the bill's exceptions are overstated — according to Slate, "California's drone bill is not draconian. It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."
The article notes that 10 other states already require a warrant for routine surveillance with a drone (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). Further, Brown's claims about the bill's exceptions are overstated — according to Slate, "California's drone bill is not draconian. It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."
something to remember next time you vote (Score:5, Insightful)
which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?
answer: both. the fix is in.
happy voting! now move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he probably just got black mailed or threatened in some other ways...
Re:something to remember next time you vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I don't get is why people consider this "getting sold out." Didn't about 99-100% of voters support these people in the last few dozen elections? Aren't we about to unanimously re-elect these parties in about a month? This is Democracy in action: we are saying we want what's happening.
If you're speaking with one voice ("fuck me, fuck me hard!!") in the voting booth and another voice in public ("hey, stop fucking me"), then maybe you are the problem.
If you vote Democrat, you are saying that you suppor
Re: (Score:1)
What I don't get is why people consider this "getting sold out." Didn't about 99-100% of voters support these people in the last few dozen elections? Aren't we about to unanimously re-elect these parties in about a month? This is Democracy in action: we are saying we want what's happening.
If you're speaking with one voice ("fuck me, fuck me hard!!") in the voting booth and another voice in public ("hey, stop fucking me"), then maybe you are the problem.
If you vote Democrat, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.
If you vote Republican, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.
Those two parties have already stated this part of their platforms. It's only when you vote American that you're opposing their policies and saying you would prefer constitutionally limited powers, due process, and civil rights. If that's what you want, then vote for someone else, or run if no one else is running.
And yet when we try and make these points to voters, they insist that a 3rd party is somehow "stealing" votes, so they go back to the tried and true, and vote the party line.
I sure as fuck Hope that Obama woke people up when a politician says they are bringing Change.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it is possible for two candidates to share the same ideas on some issues and radically different issues on others. Obama and any Republican opponent support the use of American force on foreign soil whenever they think it necessary. That's true. But they would differ vastly on issues of gay rights, gun control, immigration, health care, taxes, abortion rights, and a whole host of other issues.
The inability of people who hate both Democrats and Republicans to see actual differences between them
Re: (Score:1)
I've seen people try to refute this straw man a lot lately. I don't think anyone is saying there is literally no difference between the two parties. What I mean when I say something like "the Democrats and Republicans are the same" is that they are either the same on issues I consider important (like the GP's "support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process") or not sufficiently different on issues I consider important (climate change, taxes). Of course they di
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that by voting for democrats or republicans, you are implicitly supporting a system that allows your vote to legitimize things you don't believe in.
If you vote for Obama, because he supports gay rights more than Mitt Romney, it doesn't mean you support killing people with drones, but it does support the 2 party system that uses your vote for gay rights into a vote for war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I'd rather watch the empire crumble from comfort of my reasonably private home, with some well-deserved healthcare.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice ad hominem rant. Really makes you look sophisticated and mature and totally not desperate or defensive at all.
The problem is that the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are inconsequential. Even when comparing the extremes of both parties, they're both still narrowly confined to the authoritarian right. Take another look at your list of issues where they differ: none of them actually matter. Of course, the issues themselves are serious and important, but the controversies are largely fab
Re: (Score:2)
Federalism 101 (Score:2)
It is not that surprising, given that the executive branch has determined it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence.
one of the reasons why the geek remains politically impotent is that he can't remember the most basic distinctions between state and federal governments.
what he has is a set of memes that he shoehorns into every argument.
Re:No more memes (Score:2)
In the event I find myself senile, I would like to continue operating as long as possible without that information.
If I still have my wits about me, I would prefer that nine people have to reread my speculation so that one set of virgin ears were reached. It's for the children.
Re: (Score:3)
no doubt they showed him some incriminating drone footage of himself.
Though think about it, if you're in public, you're already being recorded. They should need a warrant to drone over your back yard though.
Re: (Score:1)
Churn the pot (Score:2)
ask yourself: which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?
answer: both. the fix is in.
happy voting! now move along.
I don't live in California, but I'm voting against anyone currently in office.
Keep churning the pot. Eventually, they'll become pro-public just to stay in office.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_t... [answers.com]
Thanks for the threat (Score:2)
nice gesture, but the reason this is inadequate may be summed up with the monkey-water-spray experiment.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_t... [answers.com]
Did I mention that it's anonymous? No lists, no donations, no polls, no canvassing. Just resolve to vote against all incumbents when you're in the voting booth.
Thanks for the threat, but I think everyone here realizes that voting in the US is safe.
Join the boot party: anonymous and safe!
Re: (Score:3)
the point of referencing the experiment was that it's a good demonstration of what can happen when a system is fundamentally flawed in such a way that flaws are re-indoctrinated on new entrants. simply changing new entrants will do little or nothing on the course of the system, unless ALL the participants are replaced simu
California Uber Alles (Score:1, Offtopic)
California über alles
California above all others
(California über alles) (2x) [Dead Kennedys]
I'm your governor Pete Wilson, ya know
The baddest governor to ever grab the mic and go
BOOOM!
Gimme a budget and watch me hack it!
Gimme a beat and I'll show you how to jack it!
I give the rich a giant tax loophole
I leave the poor living in a poophole
At a time when Aids is in a crisis
I cut health care and I raise prices
Sales tax, snack tax, excise tax
Information attack with a newspaper tax
Hit the po
P.S. (Score:3)
I posted this one to point out how little things change. I guess I should have posted at least one more versions lyrics
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president...
Carter Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school!
[Chorus:]
California Uber Alles
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
Close your eyes, can't
Gobernator (Score:1)
Oh yes, we were (Score:3)
Because he couldn't do anything. That was glorious. Moonbeam is still loved, so he can still do things, or get away with not doing things that we really want because he doesn't have to give a fuck about his approval rating. The idiots will approve of him (if on no other basis, as the lesser of evils) regardless.
Note, I am about as liberal as they come. But I voted for Arnold, and I'd do it again. The only part of it I'm sorry about is that it cost the people money. We'd have wound up with Moonbeam again reg
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Oh yes, we were (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.
The Democratic party is centrist and pro-big-business, especially in California. California is one of the least friendly states to small business. Not only is the state a bastard (and I'm not talking about environmental regulations here, I am generally in favor of those except when they are used to do stupidity, e.g. preventing a CostCo in Ukiah due to "concerns" about "habitat" when the land in question is a big fucking waste of concrete that harbors nothing but some plucky weeds-in-cracks and which is both an eyesore and an ecological failure) but there's over fifty counties, and they all do business differently. The real leftists have all moved on to other parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives loves to tout how anti-business California is,
Well, I'm a Liberal. California is really anti-small-business, if I left that out then I sincerely apologize. If they can make big wads of money on you at once then you're in, baby.
but they never explain why California's economy PER-CAPITA is larger than 33 other states.
Hollywood. Cause: It was actually near some of the least desirable land in the USA, which studios could snap up for nothing. Silicon Valley. Cause: Education, climate. An actual win. Food production. Cause: Environmental sensitivity was discovered before California was completely shit upon, also coastal climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I never got why "Criticizing Democrats" = "Pro-Republican." Vice versa too.
Re: Oh yes, we were (Score:4, Insightful)
"You have a choice: here they are." See? You have freedom so stop claiming otherwise!
Would you like a left boot or a right boot on your throat?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't, but he wasn't "criticizing Democrats" in a vacuum - he framed it in a way that it was clear he was saying "Democrats are more authoritarian than Republicans." Which is bullshit, because they're both terrible at the moment.
Even worse, the same guy most likely posted this AC comment in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he's got support for his read-between-the-lines partisan dog-whistle message. Coward, indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
oh right, here's the classic backtrack - you slam "liberal Democrats" as "authoritarian", implying that the opposite of "liberal Democrats" wouldn't be so authoritarian, and then once someone calls you out, "oh I never said that, did I? that's all in YOUR head, you need to calm down!" After all, if you were caught taking a stand for the side you prefer, you've now backed yourself into a corner, and that's so inconvenient when you're trying to prove that you're right.
Don't be an infant. Everyone knows exa
Re: (Score:2)
Confession time - I did indeed do this. The "WhiteHart" sock puppet was a childish experiment to see if a raging liberal (as opposed to a hardcore right-winger) would garner more karma. Of course I am not a raging liberal, so the experiment went nowhere (as you can see from WhiteHart's comment history).
This may or may not violate Slashdot's account policies. I'm not sure, I cannot find anything about multiple accounts in the FAQ. If it becomes an issue and my regular account were to be terminated, I really
Re: (Score:2)
Please believe me when I say you're a total douchebag, and even when you're admitting your sock-puppetry you still can't bring yourself to be completely honest.
Your major mental defect politically (if you're really even interested in what your problems are, but I doubt it) is that you look at it like a football game - ie your fake "raging liberal" vs. "hard-core right winger." You care not about the finer points of any issue; everything for you is framed in this black-and-white world, and basically, anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are supposing a lot about me. But I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.
However, "my side" sees politicians working together as the problem. I have no issue with government being paralyzed. I don't want them to work on solutions. The less they do the better.
And I said "calm down" because you were rude. It was condescending, so sorry for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.
It's amazing that you can't see how this part automatically makes everything else you say instantly into garbage. I'm supposing anything about you - like I said, everyone knows a couple of people like you, and it's your single-mindedness that makes you all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They always have been. Not that "conservative Republicans" are often much better. Politicians generally feel they know how you should live your life better than you do--people who don't have that itch don't feel the need to go into politics.
Re: (Score:1)
It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.
It's happening everywhere, unfortunately. In my country there are even Social Democrats who stand for the night-watch state rather than the well-fare state.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really surprising at all considering that this reality is demonstrated in Europe and Asia on a daily basis. Once you accept that the government is responsible for the overarching welfare of society it's natural that they would adopt an authoritarian stance and intervene in corporate and economic affairs, all for the greater good.
That both ends of the political spectrum end up adopting similar approaches is probably inevitable. It may violate the original ideology, but bureaucracy makes it inevitabl
Re: (Score:2)
There are liberals, and then there are liberals [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:3)
I guess they would be better off with the "Sperminator".
Because this single issue is the only thing that matters, right? No, wait. Abortion is the only thing that matters. No, I mean gay marriage is the only thing that matters.
Single-issue voters deserve all the bad things that happen to them because of their narrow-minded, short-sighted choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Single-issue voters deserve all the bad things that happen to them because of their narrow-minded, short-sighted choices.
If you have any electoral system where
(a) voters get one chance every few years to vote,
(b) the choice of candidates is small, and
(c) there is no effective power of recall or override allowing the electorate to express binding opinions between elections
then everyone is reduced to little more than a single-issue voter.
If you're lucky, you have a candidate available whose policies match your preferences on a range of issues, but that is not guaranteed. If there's no-one you broadly agree with then in reality
Re: (Score:2)
"Sperminator"
Any reference on that? I hear steroids reduce your libido.
Re: (Score:1)
Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Marital_separation [wikipedia.org]
Arnold Schwarznegger's chequered history with women [telegraph.co.uk]
It looks like he have not needed much of steroids, as he started bodybuilding at an early age.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that you aren't confusing him with Chuck Norris?
Re: (Score:1)
This is the wrong attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.
Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is the wrong attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A law making something explicit that was previously implicit eliminates the window where someone can say "Judge hasn't said we're in the wrong, so we're gonna keep doing it".
Re:This is the wrong attitude (Score:4, Interesting)
He is the head of the executive branch of government of his state, which means that ultimately he's in charge of the State's Attorneys General office, and since officers in California are deputized at a state level too (for arrests as criminals change jurisdictions) he has a stake there too.
The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State. The Legislative branch's job is to represent the citizenry/populace. I hate to break it to you, but this is actually working in the way it's meant to. If the Legislature wants this law to pass then they need to come up with a supermajority to override the veto.
Or, let the situation reach a prosecution, and then appeal the grounds of evidence from the drones and wait for it to go through the State courts, possibly ending up in Federal courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to a modern governor's race in which the governor does not run on a platform chock-full of legislative initiatives?
Some people say the same thing about the President - that it's Congress' job to pass laws, so the President shouldn't be proposing legislation. Technically true, but that is not how our government actually works in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State.
Yes - in the interests of the populace.
The notion that only legislative branch represents the citizenry is bullshit. They are all supposed to represent us, just in different aspects (largely to prevent them from colluding).
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
"The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."
Lamest excuse ever. If it didn't "go beyond" what is required by the US and state Constitutions, there would be no need for the law!
Tyrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Well shouldn't the burden be; "does not infringe constitutional rights" and not "might take away our fun of snooping on everyone"?
Re: (Score:2)
And the other giant elephant poop in the room that burns me up; A drone is a NEW WAY to allow surveillance on people. The attitude seems to be that "they have a RIGHT to find out everything the can" without actually letting anyone know what the burning need is. Technology is accelerating, but people don't seem to be at a greater threat of organizing, growing unions and becoming educated and empowered citizens in a Democracy.
Heck, you've got Wall Street brokers talking on PBS, and sleezy monopoly frankenfood
Re: (Score:1)
So was (is) Obama. Anyone who is just left of Right-wing Extremist is labeled a "far-left communist".
I would bet that if Nixon or Reagan ran today they would be lambasted as tree-hugging pinkos by the current "conservative" leadership.
Here's the bill: public notice key (Score:5, Informative)
Probably the sticking point was:
A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.
There's also some reasonable limitations on data captured by drones (can't be kept long) and a requirement to log who requests drone missions. If only there was some federal body that could come up with some reasonable standard for all states...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that these drones would fit right into language covering law enforcement helicopters. There is no real difference other than expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Expense has a massive impact on how and why a technology is used. Phone tapping used to be cost prohibitive because you had to have someone review the results in real time, today between metadata and speech to text you can mine the conversations of literally the entire world for less than 0.0007% of US GDP, and so we have. If aerial surveillance of the populace cost as much as 20 patrol cars with officers then few departments will even bother with an air unit and those that do have one will use them sparing
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is a pretty weird provision, it reminds me of the old laws regarding the newfangled horseless carriages, where a flagman had to walk ahead of the vehicle, alerting the populace that a internal combustion vehicle approacheth.
But as I say, your dirty tactic is simply not allowed here, where a sizable number of posters will probably end up in a bunker in Idaho, hiding from the guvmint, and stockpiling weapons for the liberalati apocalyp
Re: (Score:3)
The last word is probably the most damning.
There's a very popular school of thought in security that keeping capabilities secret is a means to reduce risk*. Such a vague requirement to disclose capabilities is open to lawsuits arguing that the disclosure must include things like maximum range, speed, radar size, and so forth, effectively providing an instruction manual for criminals looking to evade such a drone, who now know that their escape plan must include driving so fast for so far.
* No, it's not secu
Re: (Score:2)
News Flash! Jerry Brown is still alive. (Score:2, Insightful)
News Flash! Californians keep electing him.
News Flash! Democracy is the best system for crushing freedom.
How much money does Brown get from police unions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this part, too:
"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."
First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs. Second, this let's the use the old "inspection" ruse to use the drone as long as they can get some inspector to tag along.
I would recommend you all remember this when it's time to vote. Make stuff like this a big deal. Call them to the carpet at town hall meetings. Etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, search and rescue efforts, wildfire inspection, all make sense for this sort of exception; but you are right a blanket "emergency situation" may as well be no requirement at all because anything can be viewed as an emergency and anyone claiming emergency is almost always given the benefit of the doubt for anything short of an outright hoax.
Re: (Score:3)
I love this part, too:
"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."
First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs.
Reminds me of the old "Everything we do is by definition an emergency, so we "own" your radio systems" argument used by a lot of Whackers when Amateur radio started bing used more in emergency communications. They'd try to defend ordering Pizza as an emergency.
Didn't work then, and declaring everything as an emergency doesn't work now either.
Brown is a right winger (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Clinton, he gets a lot of hate from the right despite pushing a right wing agenda:
Killed single payer health care, which passed three times under Arnie
Opposed a serious increase in the minimum wage
Opposes marijuana legalization
And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who lives there could come up with more stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
College Costs - this has more to do with the easy federal loan money that hook young people into debt for decades. As money gets easier to come by for colleges, they raise costs.
CA Single Payer - you mean the plan that would cost more then the states current annual budget to implement?
CA Budget - this has more to do with the coastal are of the state able to shit gold in even a crappy economy. Although, I will give him some credit here (he'd get even more if he would drop support for the useless highspeed
Re: (Score:2)
So if you want to "inspect" someone, just start a wildfire nearby, and you've got all the excuse you need!
Well, this IS Governor Moonbeam, after all... if he is for or against something, best consider cui bono.
Blackmailing and Smearing opponents (Score:2)
What would be wrong with more requirements? (Score:2)
The constitution is there to limit government. There is nothing wrong with limiting government more than the bare minimum limits defined by the constitution. In fact, I would say there is a good case today for rewriting the constitution using far more strict, unambiguous modern language with far more limitations than it currently has.
Your problem with constitutional revisions (Score:2)
Just like a compromised computer system, once you are infected you can't repair the system reliably unless you know everything possible about the infection. In a government system, once you have been compromised enough you pass the point of no return where the system is unable to repair itself reliably. This is the point we've been at since JFK, probably since FDR.
You can't rewrite or amend or even just pass laws to address smaller issues like corporations===people or bribery of officials; things with 90%+
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution is there to limit government. There is nothing wrong with limiting government more than the bare minimum limits defined by the constitution. In fact, I would say there is a good case today for rewriting the constitution using far more strict, unambiguous modern language with far more limitations than it currently has.
A rewrite is not necessary (and would be dangerous, since it would almost certainly be under the control of a legal profession that routinely ignores many ethics issues).
When James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he had the difficult task of condensing a long list of proposed rights into a manageable list. He did this by providing for the assertion unspecified rights "retained by the people" in the 9th Amendment, and "reserved to the people" in the 10th. A document with around one hundred rights, after
More proof Californians are Serfs, not Citizens (Score:1)
In Washington State, our State Constitution guarantees your Right of Privacy, and even the feds can't follow you without a court issued warrant.
Freedom.
It's what's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Even Hong Kong knows that.
Do you want to be Free?
The weather's fine (as in we have water and energy) in Seattle.
Re: (Score:1)
Sit in Traffic? Um, we bike or walk here. You must be from California.
As to cops, that only applies if you're not white, for the most part.
Vagrants are what we call Californians who forgot to get a job first before moving to Seattle.
As to shop windows - that is Portland anarchists that do that. Not Seattleites. We turtle.
But we do have privacy, legally.
Government never does that ... (Score:1)
And I'm sure that the California government has never done ANYTHING that imposes requirements above and beyond the national or state constitution.
Should this be read as, "We already wish you had less privacy then you do now, so we'd rather stick to the minimum"?
some bubbblee (Score:1)