Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the What-me-warrant? dept.

In a very minor victory on the road to preventing a dystopian future of pervasive surveillence, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Edward Shea ruled that warrantless and constant covert video surveillance of someone's rural front yard is contrary to the public's reasonable expectation of privacy and violates Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Thanks go to the EFF for submitting an amicus brief in the case.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:39AM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:39AM (#126457)

    Some of the legal decisions in the US have been a bit better lately. Here in Canada we just had warrantless searches of phones when you're arrested legal.

    If you have a few extra bucks lying around, donating to the EFF would be a great thing to do. They even have some pretty cool t-shirts for a little nerd-cred.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:16PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:16PM (#126489)

      I've noticed the increase in 'good' legal decisions from the (mostly federal district courts) lately also, and I'm liking the trend.

      Now if we could only get some of this from the Supreme Court....

      BTW, I'm sorry that your courts ruled that way on the warrantless searches. :-(

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:14PM (#126463)

    but people want it!
    just not "in their face".
    if they "dress it up" like m$ (online activation), facebook (real name) and google (telephon sms to open account)
    nobody will want to miss it.

    • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:20PM

      by mtrycz (60) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:20PM (#126490)

      I have none of the three. Am I ok?

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:13PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:13PM (#126531)

        Obviously you're hiding something - but don't worry, your abstinence has been noted by the NSA, and they have placed you on the waiting list for some enhanced interrogation to figure out exactly what that is.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:02PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:02PM (#126543)

          No need for a waiting list, I hear Cheney is eager to do it again. And he obviously has a lot of free time in between takes.

  • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:15PM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:15PM (#126464) Journal

    OK, now nobody say anything snarky about the Homeland Spies or they'll use it as evidence that nobody has any "reasonable expectation of privacy" anywhere ever.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:16PM

    by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:16PM (#126477) Journal

    I'm actually of two minds on this. On the one hand, this may go some small way towards limiting police overreach and thereby possibly cut down on waste by police departments.

    On the other hand....it was a FRONT yard. In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

    On the gripping hand: It is my opinion that drugs - yes, all of them - should be legalized, and the DEA and "drug" part of the FDA should be repurposed to enforce labelling and purity standards; and crimes committed under the influence of drugs should be treated identically to crimes committed by a sober person. (Basically: "Because I got high" shouldn't be an excuse for anything.)

    --
    Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:41PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:41PM (#126481)

      Getting a warrant is not too much of a burden for the police if they want to spy on someone for a long period of time.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:04PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:04PM (#126545)

        And since they spy with our tax dollars, it would be a good idea if there was some independent oversight as to the legitimacy of the job.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by arashi no garou on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:08PM

      by arashi no garou (2796) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:08PM (#126485)

      and crimes committed under the influence of drugs should be treated identically to crimes committed by a sober person. (Basically: "Because I got high" shouldn't be an excuse for anything.)

      Actually I think the fact that we are harder on those committing crimes under the influence of legal drugs (specifically, alcohol and prescription meds) is a good thing. I seriously doubt "but I was high/drunk" will ever be a legitimate defense in court.

      As for the privacy of one's front yard, in this specific case the defendant was in a rural area, so it's quite possible that the drive that goes by his house is also his own private property, and the front of his house may not have been observable from the public right of way, hence the need to install a hidden camera to monitor it. The fact that he was shooting glass bottles in his front yard also lends to this possibility; most urban and suburban areas forbid discharging a firearm near the road or near other people's property.

      I'll use my house as a hypothetical. While my front yard and front door are visible from the road, it's not a regular city street or suburban neighborhood, rather it's fairly rural. There is no sidewalk nor is there a place for the cops to park their car across the road and maintain a stakeout; the shoulder of the road drops off immediately by about six feet and the speed limit is 45mph, so they would end up getting hit sitting there at night. Basically, they would have to park in my driveway, or else install a camera on my property. The former wouldn't be covert enough, and the latter would require a warrant. I think that's ultimately why they lost the evidence; if he had been in a neighborhood surrounded by other homes, the cops could have just parked on the curb (or if they got lucky, rented an empty house across the street) and the defendant's case would be weaker, given that stakeouts are a normal thing with law enforcement.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:25PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:25PM (#126535)

        Actually I think the fact that we are harder on those committing crimes under the influence of legal drugs (specifically, alcohol and prescription meds) is a good thing. I seriously doubt "but I was high/drunk" will ever be a legitimate defense in court.

        I'm getting a little cognitive dissonance between those two sentences. I agree that "but I was high/drunk" will probably never be a legitimate defense in court, with good reason. But why should "but I wasn't high/drunk" be a defense entitling you to a reduced punishment for the same exact crime? Outside of a Puritan theocracy I mean.

        Maybe being under the influence of drugs makes you more likely to do something stupid/dangerous - but how is the person who does the same exact things sober any less of a danger to society? If anything it seems they're potentially *more* of a danger: most drug users are at least sometimes sober, which would (presumably) make them safer - meanwhile the sober person probably occasionally gets drunk/high, which likely makes them even *more* dangerous.

        • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:06PM

          by buswolley (848) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:06PM (#126586)

          This.

          --
          subicular junctures
        • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:12AM

          by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:12AM (#126699)

          But why should "but I wasn't high/drunk" be a defense entitling you to a reduced punishment for the same exact crime?

          I never said that.

          I'll give you a hypothetical example of what I mean. Someone who causes a car accident, while sober, that causes someone else to die in that accident, can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He wasn't drunk or high, therefore he wasn't impaired and was no different from any other sober driver on the road that day, as far as the law is concerned. So, if convicted, he would be punished for involuntary manslaughter and nothing more. Now, let's say he was drunk, knew he was impaired and shouldn't drive, but drove anyway. He causes an accident that results in loss of life, but instead of involuntary manslaughter, he is charged with voluntary manslaughter, a more aggravated offense that carries a harsher punishment. He knew his chances of causing an accident were higher because he was drunk but he chose to take that risk, which is why there are two different charges. You can replace "drunk" with high and it's the same issue, even if the drugs taken are perfectly legal (for example, prescription narcotics).

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:19AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:19AM (#126757)

            No, that's *exactly* what you're saying, as seen from a different perspective.

            So basically the law should take account of the fact that you're voluntarily increasing the danger of your actions, but ignore the fact that, even inebriated, you are still a far safer driver than the sober blithering idiot in front of you? Because the basic fact is that *no one* is "no different from any other sober driver on the road that day", there is an astounding variation in skill and attention. Eye's of the law be damned: laws are created by man, and thus are inevitably flawed. When recognized those flawed should be fixed, not defended.

            You'll forgive me if I leave my accusation of Puritanism on the table.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:28AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:28AM (#126760)

              To clarify:

              Why should we give the blithering idiot a free pass to voluntarily risk the lives of other people on the road by driving at all, just because he's sober? By what logic is his decision to drive less damning than the skilled driver who decides to have a six-pack or two first, knowing that they will diminish his skill to only slightly above average?

              (For the purpose of this argument let us assume we're talking about independently verified driving skill, not alcohol-clouded judgment calls.)

              • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:51PM

                by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:51PM (#126834)

                For the purpose of this argument let us assume we're talking about independently verified driving skill

                The problem is you cannot assume that position, because the government doesn't care about individual skill levels. If you can pass the driving test, you can drive, because you have shown a level of proficiency they have deemed safe for daily driving on public roads. Whether you think that's right or wrong, it's immaterial to the discussion at hand.

                Bottom line: If you intentionally drive impaired (be it drugs, alcohol, or whatever), the law sees that as intent to commit harm. That's a fact, not a theory or supposition. If you don't like that fact, work to change the law.

                • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45PM

                  by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:45PM (#126906)

                  You are using the current state of the law to justifyu the current state of the law. Argue in circles much?

                  • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:13PM

                    by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:13PM (#126918)

                    Just pointing out facts rather than making assumptions I can't back up. Obviously we have two wildly different viewpoints on how the law should be interpreted and enforced on this particular matter. I will concede that there is room for improvement (hence my "if you don't like it, work to change it" statement), but you also seem to be of the opinion that falling down drunk somehow means less impaired than perfectly sober. I can't wrap my head around the logic of that, so I'll just say let's agree to disagree and be done with it.

                    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:34PM

                      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:34PM (#127010)

                      No, I'm of the opinion that a skilled driver operating at 10% capacity may well still be more competent than an average driver operating at 100% capacity. I thought I was quite clear on that fact, and it seems really hard to argue otherwise.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:17AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:17AM (#126773) Journal

              So basically the law should take account of the fact that you're voluntarily increasing the danger of your actions, but ignore the fact that, even inebriated, you are still a far safer driver than the sober blithering idiot in front of you?

              Yes. What I don't get is why you think this is a flaw in the law rather than a grievous abandonment of responsibility by the driver.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:51PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:51PM (#126908)

                Because it tilts the law strongly in favor of the blithering idiots.

            • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:41PM

              by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:41PM (#126832)

              Accuse all you want, I'm agnostic, and you wishing religion on me to prove your point won't change that.

              We have driving tests to obtain a license. If you're such a bad driver that you can't pass the test, you aren't allowed to drive. So yes, the law does see all unimpaired drivers the same way. However, someone who chooses to drive while impaired is intentionally tipping the scales in favor of an accident, and the law can recognize that as intent to commit a crime and therefore increase the charge to a more aggravated level.

              It almost seems to me that you're trying to imply that being drunk doesn't mean being impaired. I disagree with that, based on what the statistics have shown about drunk driving accidents and impaired driving in general. And lest you bring up the "Puritan" argument again, there's more than one way to be impaired. For example, I'm diabetic, and if I were to get behind the wheel with a blood glucose level low enough to put me in danger of passing out, I'm just as impaired a driver as a drunk person, and I would expect to be charged the same way if I caused an accident.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:08PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:08PM (#126916)

                My point is that, if someone can pass the driving test with flying colors with a twelve-pack in their belly, why should they suffer more severe penalties if they're involved in an accident after a few bears than the guy who just barely passed the driving test stone sober? After all the skilled drunk driver is still far more capable of operating the vehicle safely than the law requires.

                I agree that a disproportionate number of accidents are caused by drunk drivers - but I suspect that the vast majority of those were drivers who were merely adequately skilled to begin with, and drinking suppressed their skill to below "safe" levels.

                Your blood glucose example actually illustrates my point wonderfully - you might "expect" to face similar penalties, but as far as I can tell the only increased legal risk you actually face is losing your license - as far as I can tell there are no laws subjecting you to any other elevated penalties - they all specifically target "alcohol intoxication", or occasionally just "intoxication", not "impairment"

                • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:23PM

                  by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:23PM (#126921)

                  My point is that, if someone can pass the driving test with flying colors with a twelve-pack in their belly,

                  You're talking about a perfect storm circumstance, a one in 100 million chance of finding someone who is so good a driver and has such a high tolerance for alcohol that they would be able to pull off such a feat. This wouldn't be the first time I've heard someone try to claim they are a better driver when drunk than when they are sober, all while they were trying to maintain focus and balance despite their obvious nystagmus.

                  It's obvious at this point that this is a very personal issue for you, and you very strongly believe that driving drunk is less impairment than driving sober. Impairment means less than your normal ability, and driving drunk is intentional impairment of oneself, and the law considers that a crime. If you can't stomach that for personal reasons, write your state legislature, vote for the representative that sides with your point of view, or run for election yourself. For all your accusations of Puritanism on my part, you're ignoring the fact that you are approaching this from a position of blind faith.

                  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:29PM

                    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:29PM (#127007)

                    Actually I never drive after more than a single drink, I've spent enough time in racing simulators to recognize exactly how badly it impairs my driving, and I'm just not willing to take the chance of killing someone, myself included. But I have also occasionally met people who are more competent drivers after drinking all evening than I am stone sober. It's not a simple issue to address.

                    And what exactly would be the point of contacting my legislature on the issue when both popular opinion and prison lobbies are allied against me? First public opinion must change - only then will the legislature consider moving.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:13PM (#126487)

      > "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      The problem many people have here is with the definition of the word privacy. Privacy means multiple things. It can mean secrecy, but it can also mean freedom from molestation. If you replace the word privacy with "not being stalked" the analysis becomes much more clear. We all have an expectation of not being stalked even in public. That the stalking is done remotely with electronics rather than in person should not make it permissible - if anything it makes it less permissible because electronics are implacable and relentless.

      • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:21PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:21PM (#126516)

        Another thing I notice is a lot of people's perception of what 'public' means is markedly different from what many rural folk's(myself included) perception of 'public'.

        Context matters also in discussing this subject.

        It appears to me that a person's perception of 'personal space'[1] increases as population density decreases in that area.

        [1] IIRC, in the USA it averages about/almost an arm length. This seems to influence the person's perception of what 'public' means in certain contexts.

    • (Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:15PM

      by SecurityGuy (1453) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:15PM (#126488)

      In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      No one said you have a reasonable expectation that no one is going to see what you do there. The ruling said that 24/7 video surveillance for an extended period goes beyond that, though. Makes sense to me. I expect my neighbors might see me do something in the front yard. I don't expect the police to have a camera pointed at it, and I'm ok with courts telling them they shouldn't, otherwise as technology gets cheaper and cheaper, there will just be cameras pointed everywhere.

      It is my opinion that drugs - yes, all of them - should be legalized, and the DEA and "drug" part of the FDA should be repurposed to enforce labelling and purity standards; and crimes committed under the influence of drugs should be treated identically to crimes committed by a sober person.

      Two minds myself on that one. I think putting someone in jail for a long time because they put a chemical in their body but didn't harm anyone else, is a bad idea. Conversely, I've seen a few lives ruined by drugs. I've driven an accidental OD to the emergency room. My libertarian self doesn't want to tell other people what to do, but my practical self expects that legalizing everything will result in harm to people that wouldn't be harmed now. There was (and may still be, I'm not sure if they're in jail now) a couple guys in my town who would go around burglarizing houses to fund their heroin habit. I know, and agree, punish the crime of burglary, but overlooking the fact that some drugs can render you not able to hold a decent job, yet in need of money to fund your addiction, seems naive. Also, punishing the crime isn't working one bit as far as DUIs go, so expecting that to actually happen may also be naive.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:38PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:38PM (#126575) Homepage Journal

        My libertarian self doesn't want to tell other people what to do, but my practical self expects that legalizing everything will result in harm to people that wouldn't be harmed now. There was (and may still be, I'm not sure if they're in jail now) a couple guys in my town who would go around burglarizing houses to fund their heroin habit. I know, and agree, punish the crime of burglary, but overlooking the fact that some drugs can render you not able to hold a decent job, yet in need of money to fund your addiction, seems naive.

        An fairly reasonable perspective. However, it seems to me that ending the "war on drugs" and redirecting a portion of the money wasted on "enforcement" to providing addicts with drugs directly and drug tretment on demand would limit the crimes you're concerned about.

        What is more, the people who receive drug treatment and get on with their lives would not branded as felons for life, which often means that someone can't get a decent job -- for the rest of their lives, and seriously impacting their lifetime earning potential and negatively impacting the economy.

        Also, not incarcerating people for drug "crimes" would free up additional resources for things like infrastructure and education, which have positive impacts on both society and the economy, rather than the negative impact that mass incarceration has.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:40PM (#126630)

          redirecting a portion of the money wasted on "enforcement" to providing addicts with drugs directly and drug [treatment]

          That sort of common sense and ration thinking will get you nowhere because WAR WAR WAR.
          Reacting to something that is a medical matter by putting a medical man in charge (rather than a guy who has previously had a job which had him carrying a gun) is way too logical to ever be adopted here.

          -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:12AM

          by dry (223) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:12AM (#126716) Journal

          What other easy way is there to segregate the poor and remove their rights? Next you'll be sugesting everyone be allowed to vote.

        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:15AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:15AM (#126741)

          That's another problem: Punishments should be finite. You shouldn't get out of prison only to find that you can't get any jobs after you've served your time, thereby encouraging you to go into a life of crime. That is a separate problem from the drug war. We should focus on rehabilitation (and doing what you suggest is one way to do that, but it needs to be expanded elsewhere too).

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:55AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:55AM (#126767) Homepage Journal

            Punishments should be finite. You shouldn't get out of prison only to find that you can't get any jobs after you've served your time, thereby encouraging you to go into a life of crime. That is a separate problem from the drug war.

            I couldn't agree more. We waste so much human potential by just throwing people away. Even if they don't end up in prison, just pleading guilty to a felony is enough to pretty much ruin any chance for upward mobility.

            That's one of the reasons why I believe that we should do away with plea bargaining altogether. Those who administer the "justice" system would argue that the system would be completely overloaded without plea bargaining. However, I think that's solving the wrong problem. The problem is that we criminalize way too many things.

            That's not to say we shouldn't remove from society those who have shown (and been fairly tried and convicted) that they are not currently fit to live with the rest of us. We should then try very hard to help those folks gain the skills and maturity to rejoin society at some point in the future.

            There are some who should remain isolated from the public (those who rape, torture and murder repeatedly, for example), as they are a danger to those around them. But those should be the exception and not the rule.

            Unfortunately, the concepts of retribution, revenge and the ever present (think the private prison industry) profit motives drive many to seek the destruction and/or ruination of people who have committed criminal acts, rather than rehabilitation. Sadly, I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:19PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:19PM (#126898) Journal

          One more point -- one year of legal marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and at least among teens marijuana use is *declining*. Legalizing doesn't necessarily mean more people using. Doesn't necessarily mean more addicts. Generally people become addicts because of some other problems in their life -- meaning they'll probably be an addict no matter what the law is, worst case with full legalization is you'll convert some alcoholics into crackheads or something. On the other hand, maybe you'll convert some violent alcoholics into lazy stoners. Or you could just use the tax revenue to fund mental health services and get to work on the *actual* problems.

          And let's also not forget that if you legalize, the price decreases dramatically. So even if that's the only change you make, and you still have the same addicts not getting help, still resorting to crime to fuel their habit...at least they won't have to steal as much because the stuff will be cheaper.

          So the concern raised by the GP is that by legalizing you'll end up with more addicts stealing to fuel their habits...but it seems quite likely that you'll have fewer addicts, each of whom will be committing fewer crimes.

          Wanna touch on the overdose thing too. A lot of ODs happen because the drugs are illegal so people are afraid to seek help. Sometimes the antidotes are even illegal too. And information about what various drugs do and what's a safe dosage is hard to find. And the drugs are often varied in strength and cut with other dangerous chemicals. Legalizing doesn't make ODs more likely; prohibition does.

          I'm not gonna say I've done a LOT of drugs; I'm no Hunter Thompson. But I've done a few. You know which one scares me the most? My bottle of 100% purity powdered caffeine. Yet any twelve year old can go buy caffeine by the ounce -- enough for multiple overdoses. Costs about $20 IIRC. There are caffeine ODs occasionally, but it's not like they're a national crisis. Because it's legal, it's well understood, and most people know how to handle it quite well.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:53PM

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:53PM (#126602) Journal

        Interestingly, heroine only precludes decent employment because it is illegal, cut, and expensive.

        After WWI, many veterans found themselves to be involuntary heroine addicts as a result of treatment for battle wounds. Most of them lived productive and more or less normal lives in spite of that. Mostly because they had a reliable supply of good quality heroine and they weren't dysfunctional before they got hooked. I doubt the illegality is the primary reason most healthy citizens don't become addicts.

        DUIs are actually down 50% since 1990 in spite of the BAC threshold for legal intoxication being lowered.

        It seems on the balance that there will be less problems if the drugs themselves are legalized and we let harmful behavior be handled with existing laws.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:45PM (#126631)

          heroine

          You did that twice, so I'm guessing it's more than a typo.
          It's a word, but you tacked an unnecessary e onto the name of the drug.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:42AM

            by sjames (2882) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:42AM (#126752) Journal

            More of a message long thinko, but I think the message remains clear.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:33AM (#126779)

          > DUIs are actually down 50% since 1990 in spite of the BAC threshold for legal intoxication being lowered.

          Got a citation for that? I went looking for numbers long before you posted and what I found was something approaching steady-state over the last ~15 years, but I could only find data for a couple of individual states not national data.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 24 2014, @10:55AM

            by sjames (2882) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @10:55AM (#128884) Journal

            Here's one [dot.gov] for fatalities. Note that NHTSA figures have such a broad definition of "alcohol related" that they are entirely useless.

      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:13AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:13AM (#126739)

        My libertarian self

        Is almost nonexistent, apparently, because otherwise you'd realize that freedom is more important than safety. Whatever happened to "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? I'll take increased risk and freedom over 'safety' (the drug war doesn't increase safety and in fact causes many people to be murdered and imprisoned by government thugs, but even if it did keep us safe, I'd oppose it) in situations like this any day.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:54PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:54PM (#126504)

      On the other hand....it was a FRONT yard. In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      Well, according to the article, the cops had to mount the camera on top of a utility pole to get a view of his house, so it sounds like it could not be seen from the road.

      Sometimes it's not so cut and dried.
      Then you have different interpretations of 'public space'(inluding streets/roads). I have lived in rural areas where only a handful of vehicles would be seen on the road near my home, and I knew every one of them to be one of my 'neighbors'.(at one house, my closest neighbor was 0.6 miles/ 1 km away) While the road was open to the public, it did not look 'public' normally. There would have been no way to pull off a covert surveillance of that house from the road.

      Well, without invading the man's privacy(GoogleEarth or Streetview, etc.) to actually see the area, I feel that I don't have enough info to second guess a judge making a 'good' call. :-)

      I do however agree completely about the limiting overreach and DEA parts of your comment.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:37PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:37PM (#126550) Journal

        Well, according to the article, the cops had to mount the camera on top of a utility pole to get a view of his house, so it sounds like it could not be seen from the road.

        It said no such thing.

        It was probably placed on top of a pole to keep it out of the resident's reach, and because a utility work van can send a guy up a pole without attracting to much suspicion.

        The fact that they arrested him for target practice seems to suggest they couldn't learn anytime useful for all their efforts.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:21PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:21PM (#126567)

          My mistake.
          The linked image on google maps(in the article) was where I got that. No way they could see the front of his house from road level/driving by.
          The cops would either have to use the top of the pole, or aerial surveillance to watch the front of his house.

          So it was NOT 'probably x' anything you suggested.

          From the article:

          A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. They used the video surveillance to obtain a warrant to search his home, which uncovered drugs and guns, leading to a federal indictment against Vargas.

          He was NOT 'arrested for target practice'. Wrong again. As usual.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:17PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:17PM (#126593) Journal

            Nope, I was right.

            The watched for ANYTHING that was enough to get them a warrant. Apparently being an undocumented (illegal) immigrant is no longer
            enough in this politically correct world. So they had to catch him doing something. They got him for target practice, and the judge saw
            right through that scam and tossed the evidence out. (Maybe you failed to read the summary, let alone tfa.)

            Why didn't they just go after him for being undocumented? That would have been a slam dunk.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:28AM

              by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:28AM (#126720)

              You are wrong-again.

              And I'm done with you.

              marked you foe(long overdue), so now I will never see your BS comments again. :-)

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:27PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:27PM (#126520)

      On the other hand....it was a FRONT yard. In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      There are degrees of public and private. It's a float, not a bool.

      In my own home, behind closed doors and windows, I would expect complete privacy except to those I invite in.

      In my front yard, I expect to be visible to anyone who happens to be walking by. I have a reasonable expectation that I am not being continuously recorded on the off-chance that I happen to commit some crime.

      In a store, I might expect to be recorded by security cameras (particularly when there are signs posted to that effect) or bystanders, but I would not expect, say, my DNA to be covertly sampled. I hope we can agree that's a reasonable expectation.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:08PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:08PM (#126546)

        You're as logical as a non-Pentium divide. Have a virtual +1 Insightful from me.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:58PM

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:58PM (#126581) Journal

      There are degrees of privacy. I may expect that neighbors and people visiting with my neighbors will see my front yard from time to time, but I do have a reasonable expectation that nobody is going to spend the time or money to record and review 24/7 footage of my front yard. Most certainly not someone that neither lives here nor knows anyone who does.

      This is similar to public streets where I expect many people will see me but that they won't follow me around making detailed logs of where I go and when.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:07AM

      by dry (223) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:07AM (#126713) Journal

      On the other hand....it was a FRONT yard. In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      Most jurisdictions have stalking laws that make it illegal to excessively watch someones front yard. While excess watching can be debated, sitting at the top of a utility pole for a month with binoculars trained on someones front door would probably be considered excessive, especially if the top of the pole is the only place that even gives a clear view. (Was the yard fenced or fronted by a hedge?)
      As another poster pointed out, the fact that he was target shooting in his front yard hints that it was at least semi-private.

    • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:08AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:08AM (#126737)

      On the other hand....it was a FRONT yard. In what world do you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a place that can be seen from a public street?

      Irrelevant. Being seen by someone is 100% different from being recorded by government technology. The footage all goes to a central source (the government) that can legally ruin your life (or even do so illegally without facing many repercussions), the recordings are generally accurate (unlike human memories), and also unlike human memory, it can stick around for years and years.

      Mass public surveillance shouldn't be permissible. Don't let anyone delude you into believing that you have no privacy whatsoever in public places; we should have privacy from mass (or unjustly targeted) government surveillance.

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:26PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:26PM (#126480) Homepage

    Continuous Surveillence of Public Space Ruled Unconstitutional

    constant covert video surveillance of someone's rural front yard

    Even if you can see it from the street, since when is a front yard "public space"?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:23PM (#126491)

      I think the point is that the surveillance was done FROM a public place.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:03PM (#126510)

      > Even if you can see it from the street, since when is a front yard "public space"?

      If you had sex out there you'd be arrested for public indecency.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:52PM (#126556)

        Not unless they flew over my front yard. I do not live in an urban, or suburban area, and my front yard cannot be seen from any roadway.(except the last 60-70 yards of my approximately 430 yard-long driveway)

      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:22AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:22AM (#126744)

        Public indecency laws are subjective and unjust, and have no place in so-called "free" societies.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Covalent on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:32PM

    by Covalent (43) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:32PM (#126495) Journal

    "The telescreen recieved and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever the wanted to. You had to live- did live, from habit that became instinct- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

    -1984, Book 1, Chapter One, George Orwell

    This is why police should need a warrant for surveillance of this kind. Otherwise, we'll all be monitored 24/7. The technology to see you inside your house through the walls is just around the corner (if they don't have it already). We must protect our privacy, unless you want to become accustomed to being "every moment scrutinized".

    --
    You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:30AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:30AM (#126777) Journal
      I guess I never got around to reading 1984 more than once else I'd probably have picked up on the irony of your quote. That quoted paragraph is interesting for not just the degree of paranoia it inspires in Winston and the rest of society, but also because the paranoia fell short of the reality. They could pick up whispers, they could see in darkness, and they could watch Winston's every move.

      I guess the lesson to modern society is that we might never know the extent to which we are spied upon. That is the reality of surveillance by the state or other powerful entities with similar opportunities. So it says for me, that there is a need to proactive with surveillance and most particularly, not to treat each potential invasion of privacy on a case by case basis.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:54PM (#126503)

    Taking a photo of the front lawn is reasonable, even driving by every so often is reasonable, but the constant surveillance wasn't reasonable. The courts are occasionally still concerned with arbitrary and capricious enforcement. Approving police forces to setup 24/7 recording of someone's front lawn, without probable cause, is ripe for abuse.

  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:53PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:53PM (#126537) Journal

    If the police had applied for the warrant first, it is unlikely this would have been thrown out. Not only would they have caught this guy, but if he was dealing from the residence, any buyers as well. Is it that hard to get a warrant?

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:05PM

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:05PM (#126560) Journal
      It's not hard at all to get a warrant. The vast majority of applications are approved. The only reasons I could see that a cop would want to skip it would be if a) he's afraid evidence will be moved/destroyed or otherwise unavailable after even a short delay (clearly not the case here) or b) there is something dodgy enough about their evidence they are ashamed to present it to a judge.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1) by schad on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:02PM

        by schad (2398) on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:02PM (#126583)

        I suspect the cops' reasoning is simply that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

        If you get to the point where a judge actually considers throwing the evidence out, it's because the guy was guilty of something, and the primary or only evidence of his guilt is on the video. So if the judge throws out the evidence, he has to do it with the full knowledge that he's likely setting a guilty man free. In this case, apparently it's an illegal immigrant who deals illegal drugs from his house and owns an unlicensed firearm. If that guy goes on to kill somebody, perhaps in a drug deal gone wrong or whatever... Judges are human. This sort of pressure is as effective on them as on everyone else.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:53PM (#126557)

    ...we have to reboot every Tuesday!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:06AM (#126736)

    I'm rural. IMHO if you can't take a leak (or do a little target practice) in your own front yard in the middle of the day without the neighbors complaining, then you ain't rural.