But it’s been “very seldom” so far. Oh, well, then that’s okay. [Mashable, Guardian, earlier]
More: Most of us would say a drone hovering 20 feet above our back yard invades our property. Will the FAA agree? [Voss, NoWayFAA.org]
Posts Tagged ‘aviation’
Civil liberties roundup
- Drones in domestic policing a liberty danger, warns NYT [editorial, earlier]
- When prosecutors freeze bank accounts, high-level targets can’t hire the best lawyers to defend themselves. Regrettable unintended etc. [Silverglate]
- On criminalizing false statements to federal agents [Scott Greenfield vs. Bill Otis]
- “Congress Has Enough Time to Keep Spying on You, Forever” [Matt Welch; Cato video with Julian Sanchez]
- More on Philadelphia forfeiture [John K. Ross, Reason, earlier]
- Homeland Security program: “Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations” [Kim Zetter/Wired via Fountain]
- Does Brooklyn indictment signal U.S. claim of universal jurisdiction over acts hostile to its foreign policy, anywhere in world? [Eugene Kontorovich/Volokh]
Torts roundup
- If you file a tag-along injury claim over a mishap on the city bus, remember that surveillance cameras might be able to establish whether you were on the bus at the time [Philadelphia, Chamber-backed Pennsylvania Record]
- Baltimore, West Virginia among jurisdictions licked by flames in new “Judicial Hellhole” report [ATRA] Related? “New ad damnum law in Maryland” [Ron Miller]
- Ohio calls on asbestos claimants to notify adversaries about others they’ve sued for exposure, which is only fair [WSJ editorial, Daniel Fisher, Forbes, Buckeye Institute PDF]
- “Did the Founders’ Constitution Permit Federal Tort Reform?” [Randy Barnett and commenters]
- NY trial lawyers’ big-league political spending [NYP] [Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, PDF]
- Dueling theories on helicopter crash [AZCentral.com]
- “2012 Spot the Tort Contest” [LawHaha]
Police drones in the sky, cont’d
Caleb Brown interviews me for Cato’s Daily Podcast on the subject of law enforcement drones, which I wrote about yesterday. You can watch here.
Also, check out recent columns on the subject by my Cato colleagues Gene Healy and Nat Hentoff. As Healy points out, elected officials such as Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) have made remarkably blithe statements in favor of drone use, even as a defense contractor is perfecting tiny mechanized spies-in-the-sky that weigh no more than a battery and can perch on window ledges taking pictures of what is inside. (Another drone capability: intercepting nearby wireless communications.) Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has emerged as a leading critic (“when I’m separating out my recyclables, I don’t want them having a drone to make sure I’m putting my newspaper in the proper bin.”) The AP’s Joan Lowy covered the controversy last month.
Meanwhile, the chief practical obstacle to widespread drone deployment over U.S. skies — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval — was quietly gotten around this spring when Congress passed legislation directing the FAA to carve out an approved space for drones, a move that followed a strong lobbying push on the “pro” side and almost no organized opposition from privacy advocates, Fourth Amendment fans or anyone else (see T.W. Farnam’s excellent Washington Post account.) More on domestic drone lobbying from Andrea Stone at HuffPo and First Street Research.
Drones overhead, snapping law-enforcement pics
We’re getting closer to that world very fast — and if you have Fourth Amendment qualms, maybe you’re the sort a drone-company exec responds to as follows:
“If you’re concerned about it, maybe there’s a reason we should be flying over you, right?” said Douglas McDonald, the company’s director of special operations and president of a local chapter of the unmanned vehicle trade group.
My new post at Cato at Liberty has much more (& Above the Law).
July 17 roundup
- Prediction: Homeland Security to emerge as major regulatory agency prescribing security rules to private sector [Stewart Baker] Regulators fret: air travel’s gotten so safe it’s hard for us to justify new authority [Taranto via Instapundit] “Romney’s regulatory plan” [Penn RegBlog]
- Claim: frequent expert witness in Dallas court proceedings is “imposter” [PoliceMisconduct.net]
- “‘Temporary’ Takings That Cause Permanent Damage Still Require Just Compensation” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- On the ObamaCare decision’s wild card, the ruling on “coercive” conditions on Medicaid grants under the Spending Clause [Mike McConnell, Ilya Somin] Ramesh Ponnuru argues that ruling is no victory for supporters of limited government [Bloomberg]
- D.C.’s historic Shaw neighborhood near Cato Institute narrowly escaped planners’ bulldozer [Greater Greater Washington, WaPo]
- Michelle Obama on the right track with an idea on occupational licensure but should take it farther [Mark Perry]
- Everyone’s a judicial critic: Auto-Correct proposes replacing “Posner” with “Poisoner.”
TSA should explain — or end — its body scanner program
A year ago the D.C. Circuit told the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that it needed to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking for its controversial program of full-body scanners at airports. The rulemaking process is intended to ensure that the agency lays out clearly the factual, legal and policy basis for its actions, with a chance for opponents to lodge objections and establish a basis for judicial review. As my colleague Jim Harper points out, the agency has dragged its heels about doing this — a sort of passive resistance it would probably not tolerate from the hapless citizens stuck in its lines. TSA screening is one of the most widely resented governmental intrusions on the individual citizen of our era. Shouldn’t we all demand that the federal government demonstrate adequate justification for imposing it? [Cato at Liberty and Ars Technica; Consumerist; Constitutional Law Prof, 2011] (& welcome National Review “Web Briefing” readers; John LaPlante, Detroit News “Water Cooler”)
Lawyer: woman will stop suing School for the Deaf over frequent flyer miles
The Texas School for the Deaf flies its non-local students to their family’s homes each weekend for free, and saves the frequent flier miles for purposes such as buying air tickets for chaperones. A woman identified as D.G. sued, saying the benefit of the miles should go to her daughter, but her lawyer says she’s dropping the suit in view of the big public outcry against it. [Claire Osborn, Austin American-Statesman; followup, Ken Herman]
Taco-copters: the serious side
“Issues surrounding liability and law, rather than technology, now appear to be the biggest obstacle to autonomous vehicles.” [Ryan Avent via Alex Tabarrok]
“Woman sues dead pilot for plane crash allegedly caused by drunken passenger”
You shouldn’t have let my common-law husband and his drunken coterie onto your charter flight, they were too obviously a safety hazard, alleges the suit, filed in a British Columbia court. [CNN]