Tag Archives | Privacy

Bill to Nullify Drone Spying Introduced in New Jersey

By on March 22, 2013 in Uncategorized

Add New Jersey to the long list of states opposing drone operations within their borders.  Drone surveillance activity using unmanned aerial vehicles or “UAVs”  has become an urgent issue threatening the right to privacy, recognized by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Anti-drone legislation recently introduced by Assemblywoman Quijano (D)  and co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Handlin (R),  A3929  begins its journey with bi-partisan support.

The bill prohibits the use  drones in New Jersey with a few exceptions.

No State, local, or interstate law enforcement agency or officer shall utilize an unmanned aerial vehicle to conduct surveillance or to gather any evidence or engage in any other law enforcement activity within this State.

The legislation does allow for drone use if the Department of Homeland Security determines it “is necessary to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization,” or for reconnaissance during a natural disaster or declared emergency.

A3929 prohibits prosecutors from using evidence collected by drone surveillance in court and allows a person victimized by drone spying to seek damages in Superior Court.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Micheal Boldin called the bill extremely strong, noting that even with the exceptions, the law would eliminate most drone use in New Jersey skies.

“Police are totally banned from using drones entirely, except in those specified, very limited situations, which are rare and already the status quo. Most states considering limits on drones  are considering lesser bills that allow drone use on warrants issued under any situation,” he said. “Consider this: at a recent hearing on a bill in another state, a major drone lobbyist told the committee that ‘with these requirements for warrants and reporting, there won’t be any drones…’ He then proceeded to explain how not having a drone ‘parked over your children’s school’  would leave them open to dangerous attack by possible mass murderers wandering the streets. Ridiculous. These limits will work and they are needed.

A3929 was introduced on March 14 and referred to the Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Contact Committee members. If you live in New Jersey, contact members of the Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee  and ask them to pass A3939 on to the full Assembly for consideration. You can find committee contact information HERE.

2. Contact your assemblyperson: Contact your own representative and urge them to limit the use of drones in New Jersey. You can find Assembly member contact information HERE.

3.  Encourage your local community to take action as well. Using model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, you can introduce legislation to nullify Drones in your city, town, and county with the Privacy Protection Act .

Model legislation here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/privacy-protection-act/

4.  Share this information widely.  Please pass this along to your friends and family.  Also share it with any and all grassroots groups you’re in contact with around the state.  Please encourage them to email this information to their members and supporters.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

While the bill only limits drone use by state and local government, it will have some serious impact on intended results being pushed by the federal government. At this stage in the ‘drone game,’ the feds are working hard behind the scenes to get states to operate the drones for them.

In fact, the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance being carried out by states and local communities is the Federal government itself. Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so that those agencies can purchase drones. Those grants, in and of themselves, are an unconstitutional expansion of power.

The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once the create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’ “Bills like these put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. Without the states and local communities operating the drones today, it’s going to be nearly impossible for DHS plans to – take off.”

 

 

 

Comments { 11 }

North Dakota Bill Would Protect People from Drone Spying

By on January 31, 2013 in Announcements, Big Brother, Liberty, News

A bill introduced in the North Dakota State House of Representatives looks to protect the privacy of its residents from the police state by making a set of guidelines for the use of unmanned drones in surveillance by law enforcement.

House Bill 1373 was introduced by Reps. Becker, Anderson, Beadle, Heilman, Hofstad, Monson, Rohr, Toman, Hanson and Sen. Sitte. It was first read on Jan. 21 and referred to the Judiciary Committee where no action has presently been taken.

The bill comes in response to the growing national concern over predator drones, the controversial machines used to drop bombs onto people in foreign lands, coming to American skies en masse. Public safety concerns abound after repeated instances of crashes both domestic and abroad. Another troubling bit of information is that the Air Force maintains the right to spy on and collect data from drone missions about American citizens without so much as a warrant for up to 90 days as long as they claim it wasn’t intentional.

The text of HB 1373 states that “except as provided in section 4 of this Act, a law enforcement agency may not use an unmanned aircraft for surveillance of a person within the state or for the surveillance of personal or business property located within the borders of the state to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct.” Section 4 of the Act gives law enforcement the right to use drones for weather-related catastrophes, exigent circumstances requiring reasonable suspecion to prevent immediate danger to life or bodily harm and national border patrol. Continue Reading →

Comments { 14 }

A Little PRIVACY!

By on May 4, 2012 in Uncategorized

The world we live in is changed since the War on Terror began.  That is a fact that cannot be denied.  The truth is, anyone attempting to board an airplane is a potential terrorist.  It is possible some of us could be without even knowing it.

To save us from ourselves, we have the Department of Homeland Security bravely labeling Christians, returning war veterans, pro-lifers, and many other groups unrelated to 9/11 as terror threats, just to be safe.  And at our airports, we have the Transportation Security Administration engaging in enhanced patdowns and revealing scans of children, grandmothers and nuns.  These are the people most effective at preventing shoe bombers and underwear bombers and assorted other wardrobe bombers from getting on the planes.

I for one feel safe knowing we have these aggressive measures in place to prevent another terror attack.  But what happens if the wrong people get hired for the job?  What happens if the terrorists infiltrate the TSA?

Enter brave citizen Carol Jean Price.  A woman of 59 years, she was boarding a flight to Ohio when she was chosen for a patdown.  After the procedure was completed, she asked to speak with a supervisor.  According to other TSA Agents, she reached down and grabbed the leg and crotch of the TSA Agent to demonstrate what happened to her.  A police report, according to the story on Wink News, was filed, along with charges of assault and resisting an officer.  Similar incidents have occurred elsewhere, one in Miami, another in Phoenix. Continue Reading →

Comments { 3 }

Judge Favors Constitution on NSA Wiretaps

By on April 2, 2010 in Judiciary, Law

Not a common thing these days, but a Federal judge ruled against the federal government on NSA wiretaps. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush….

The ruling by Judge Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, rejected the Justice Department’s claim – first asserted by the Bush administration and continued under President Obama – that the charity’s lawsuit should be dismissed without a ruling on the merits because allowing it to go forward could reveal state secrets….

click here to read the rest of the article

Comments { 0 }

Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?

By on November 30, 2009 in Constitution, Originalism

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren’t authorized in the Constitution.

Comments { 3 }