MA: Mideast Surveillance Safeguard Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:05:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MA: Mideast Surveillance Safeguard Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MA: Mideast Surveillance Safeguard Act (Debating)  (Read 1297 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 24, 2014, 06:41:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sponsor: Spiral
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2014, 06:41:33 PM »

I see no reason to restrict surveillance of public areas.
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2014, 09:16:06 PM »

I would support an amendment changing "law enforcement" to something like "regional police forces" or "regional law enforcement."

I'm also concerned about the legal definition of law enforcement. Do we have one?
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2014, 12:09:00 AM »

I would support an amendment changing "law enforcement" to something like "regional police forces" or "regional law enforcement."

I'm also concerned about the legal definition of law enforcement. Do we have one?

I believe that we've referenced law enforcement in previous bills. There's nothing different that separates the definition and their responsibilities from real life from what I know. I like your amendment idea, though, so I'll bring that up right now:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2014, 10:07:34 PM »

Why should we restrict surveillance of publicly viewable areas?
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2014, 01:38:26 AM »

Why should we restrict surveillance of publicly viewable areas?

With the advancement of drone technology, the field opens up more opportunities for law enforcement to use them for surveillance. Much like we've seen with the revelations on the government overseeing all communications, there is opportunity for data mining and collecting profiles of people on all of their activities, from what friends they visit to where they eat out. Information can be gathered and stored away even for those who aren't reported for any suspicious behavior. Police abuse is very real and can be seen across the country, so I believe that it's proper for the Mideast to take action and install some legal safeguards so that instances of abuse can be greatly reduced. I think it's permissible to have some sort of surveillance so long as it's done for a good reason.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2014, 02:21:08 PM »

I am sympathetic towards the motivations behind this bill. I am, however, concerned that restricting the use of UAVs could negatively affect the effectiveness of the regional law enforcement authorities in certain cases. I just want to ensure that the police are able to obtain a warrant to use UAVs in a reasonable period of time when necessary.
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2014, 02:42:32 PM »

I am sympathetic towards the motivations behind this bill. I am, however, concerned that restricting the use of UAVs could negatively affect the effectiveness of the regional law enforcement authorities in certain cases. I just want to ensure that the police are able to obtain a warrant to use UAVs in a reasonable period of time when necessary.

Do you have any ideas for amendments in mind that will make you fully comfortable with this bill?
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2014, 03:14:56 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2014, 03:17:01 PM by ZuWo »

I am sympathetic towards the motivations behind this bill. I am, however, concerned that restricting the use of UAVs could negatively affect the effectiveness of the regional law enforcement authorities in certain cases. I just want to ensure that the police are able to obtain a warrant to use UAVs in a reasonable period of time when necessary.

Do you have any ideas for amendments in mind that will make you fully comfortable with this bill?

No, not really to be honest. There's probably no way for us legislators to directly influence how efficiently judges work and issue such warrants.
In short, I am ready to give this bill the benefit of the doubt. If we notice in the future that this bill has a clearly negative impact on the effectiveness of the work done by our law enforcement authorities, we will have to reconsider it, though.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2014, 11:50:44 PM »

What sorts of things are UAV's used for surveillance for currently?
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,522
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 11:39:17 AM »

What sorts of things are UAV's used for surveillance for currently?

Although they're still mostly for military purposes, there's increasingly more civil uses for them. Policing is a big one; UAVs scout for those who seem out of line and who may be regarded as suspicious by authorities. They may even be used for things such as road patrol, oversight of natural land (such as for valuable energy sources), or filmmaking.

Anyway, I believe that this is long due for a final vote by this point, before the session is adjourned.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2014, 11:13:10 AM »

What sorts of things are UAV's used for surveillance for currently?

Although they're still mostly for military purposes, there's increasingly more civil uses for them. Policing is a big one; UAVs scout for those who seem out of line and who may be regarded as suspicious by authorities. They may even be used for things such as road patrol, oversight of natural land (such as for valuable energy sources), or filmmaking.

Anyway, I believe that this is long due for a final vote by this point, before the session is adjourned.

And this is a bad thing because......?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2014, 11:18:02 AM »

Why should we restrict surveillance of publicly viewable areas?

With the advancement of drone technology, the field opens up more opportunities for law enforcement to use them for surveillance. Much like we've seen with the revelations on the government overseeing all communications, there is opportunity for data mining and collecting profiles of people on all of their activities, from what friends they visit to where they eat out. Information can be gathered and stored away even for those who aren't reported for any suspicious behavior. Police abuse is very real and can be seen across the country, so I believe that it's proper for the Mideast to take action and install some legal safeguards so that instances of abuse can be greatly reduced. I think it's permissible to have some sort of surveillance so long as it's done for a good reason.

And how much is this crux of your argument related to misuse of UVA's?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2014, 05:27:18 PM by Badger »

May it please this august body to accept testimony from a former member:

As head of the regional judiciary I don't often get involved in partisan political issues, but I feel compelled to strongly speak out against this ill-conceived legislation before it negatively impacts the entire court system.

Assemblyman Inks has it right: There is no valid legal or ethical reasoning for restricting observation of matters truly in the public view. The bill's sponsor seeks "legal safeguards so that instances of abuse can be greatly reduced". We already have such protections: The Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The law may permit a police officer to walk into an alley to see what's going on in the shadows, but not peek through the window curtains of a private residence. The law likewise may allow a policeman in a helicopter flying at an altitude of several hundred feet to observe what's going on in public woodlands below, it doesn't allow an officer to hover 50 feet above a residence to see what's going on over one's privacy fence in one's back yard. In both scenarios any observations made in the former cases would be rightly admissible as being in plain public view, whereas the latter cases would equally rightly result in the exclusion of all evidence as being clear violations of the right to privacy. Again, the safeguards already exist to curtail abuses.

This law makes 2 huge mis-comparisons: First is to falsely distinguish between what a private citizen could lawfully see of public surroundings from the air with a drone or helicopter, but making the exact same view of public areas by police under the exact same circumstances illegal. Because........Huh

Secondly the bill makes a false dichotomy between matters seen in public through technology (always a scary buzzword) rather than actual police officer eyes. There is not--nor should there be--any legal distinction between the right of an officer on street patrol to turn and look at what's going on in a nearby alley then there is for a police camera to turn and see what's happening in that same PUBLIC area (not that I want to open the can of worms about street security cameras). Likewise, this bill would only force police officers to get a helicopter, plane, or other manned aircraft to get an air view of public spaces, rather than opt for a far cheaper, taxpayer-friendly, unmanned drone. Again, reasoning for this distinction is absent.

To be brutally frank, this bill seems inspired more by a nebulous feeling of "drones = Big Brother" and "most cops iz bad" than any tangible protection of privacy rights. Simply put, one's activities in truly public areas are just that---public, and no less subject to legitimate observation by passers-by, and that doesn't nor shouldn't change one iota simply because the passer-by is wearing a badge. Likewise, someone with a remote controlled helicopter with a camera (available relatively cheap from Radio Shack and the like, I understand) is permitted to monitor what's going on in the nearby park, but can't legally use their technology to be a peeping tom through a neighbor's window. There is no reason on earth to change that equation of freely viewing public behavior simply because one is a police officer.

To say this bill is overreaching and a VAST reversal of long-established legal precedent would be an understatement. I urge the Assembly to defeat it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.