More privacy rights trampled

2minkey

bootlicker
suggest seeing doctor for stronger meds.

the civil air patrol is trampling privacy rights huh? yes, those youngsters in piper cubs are gonna show up in your toilet with a video cam. recording your every move. ever seen a piper cub in a toilet? takes a lot of folding, but they will fit.

"member of an elite paramilitary organization... eagle scout..."

8b39e03ae7a091f389862210.L.jpg
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
suggest seeing doctor for stronger meds.

the civil air patrol is trampling privacy rights huh? yes, those youngsters in piper cubs are gonna show up in your toilet with a video cam. recording your every move. ever seen a piper cub in a toilet? takes a lot of folding, but they will fit.

"member of an elite paramilitary organization... eagle scout..."

yep that's certainly the part they wanted you to focus on.
What about this part though....
which is all-volunteer, except at the highest levels

The Air force is not suppose to operate in this state like that.
Is that not right?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
why don't you call them and ask? i'm sure they will invite you to their secret base, provide refreshments, and explain everything.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
I wonder if minks apathy will cease if the state installs a camera in his home for national security reasons.

Nah, he will probably say, "I don't care, I have nothing to hide".
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah, it's different when you aren't controlling it.
But hey on the upside....
You would have no need to ask that question anymore.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
but i would need to establish that someone is going to be watching. there's no point in 'showing my stuff' if there's no one there to watch.

but, then, i wonder, who will be watching? and who will be watching them?

ummmmm, infinite regress...

oh darth vader, where are you now? i so want to get caught up in worrying about who is watching me, but, shockingly, i just can't convince myself that these folks are really going to harm me...

2HA4_CivilAirPatrol2.jpg
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah, sometimes it's the 'unknown' that's the worst part.

sometimes the imagination is way worse than reality.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Unfortunately, ther is no expectation of privacy in a public space. There used to be an argument for the anonymity of a crowd but that is long gone with the advent of street corner cameras, cell phones & GPS.

However, should Junior G-man fly over your 250 acre ranch & see something he doesn't understand, on your private property, will he report it as suspicious? Is there no reasonable expectation privacy on your own property, whiich is not directly observable from a public place?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
well the skies are a public place, right? you could argue that the government controls them but on the flip side, it's fucking air - how much more "open" could it be?

yes, junior g-man. that is obviously the thing to be concerned about. you get some anal crusader in there and the level of annoyance would soon lead to riots.

my friend has 5 acres south of here. he noticed a helicopter overhead. it hovered briefly with a nice view of his deck. the deck gets really good sun. they appeared to see him on the deck, kinda paused, and then left. six plants were quickly removed and replaced by similarly-sized tomato plants, before the helicopter came back a bit later and hovered some more. interesting that they came back.

i am not saying there's no reason for concern over eroding cultural privacy standards and how that ends up impacting our rights. i just don't think boy scouts with wings is the thing to pitch the fit over.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
well the skies are a public place, right?

So, there won't be an issue of my camera-carrying RC helicopter hovering over a topless sunbather? How about over a day care facility?

That['s why I used a fairly large piece of property. 5 acres, you can see across from 50 feet. 250 acres is an invasion.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
i'm sure local law enforcement could and does deal with the occasional perv. but as far as i'm concerned unless you are violating someone else's rights directly e.g pervcamming, you are as welcome to the free skies as anyone else. of course i would probably show your helicopter some birdshot, but it would all be in good fun.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
An interesting article related to this thread...

Can I declare a "no-flight zone" over my house?
February 13, 1998

Dear Cecil:

Do individuals have any rights to the airspace above the land they own? Can I, for example, declare the space above my house a no-flight zone (I know that it would be virtually impossible to enforce this), or can this only be done on a national level?

— Dawood Salam, Toronto, Ontario


Cecil replies:

I understand your feelings. You paid good money for that house. Why shouldn't you be allowed to shoot down annoying aircraft flying overhead? Well, under the enlightened policy prevailing in the Middle Ages, you would have. For centuries the common-law doctrine was, Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos — literally, "To whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths." In other words, you had complete control over everything above and below your property. You want to declare a no-flight zone over your manse? Go right ahead. True, during the Middle Ages there were pretty much no flights, period. But it's the principle that counts.

This happy state of affairs began to crumble as soon as practical aircraft appeared on the scene. Lobbyists for the infant air-transport industry argued that air travel would be impossible if air carriers had to get permission from the owner of every private property their planes flew over. Possibly also there were whispered promises of frequent flyer miles in exchange for friendly votes. All I know is that the politicians immediately caved. In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground. You see the practical effect of this. One minute you're lord of all you survey; the next you're living under the interstate.

Usque ad coelum as a principle of private ownership was formally given the boot by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Causby (1946). The court laid down a new rule: you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land. Military aircraft using a nearby airport during World War II had flown over the Causby family chicken farm at an altitude of 83 feet, scaring the chickens and rendering the property unfit for the raising thereof. The court generously ruled that the Causbys had a right to compensation. Big of them, wasn't it? Bah. Under the previous system Old Man Causby could have taken out a few bombers with his shotgun, and that would have been that.

If it's of any comfort, usque ad coelum didn't completely disappear; it was merely transferred to nations. The 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation declared that each country had sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. Thus Soviet leaders were within their rights when they ordered the destruction of commercial flight KAL 007 after it strayed over their territory in 1983. Sure, the loss of hundreds of innocent people was unfortunate. But you can be sure the next guys who flew near Russia brought a map.

Even on a national scale usque ad coelum isn't what it used to be. A 1967 treaty declared that the "exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies … shall be the province of all mankind." Though the frontier of outer space was not defined, some experts argue that it begins about 90 kilometers above the earth's surface. That's is the lowest level at which orbital flight is practical, and it's also out of range of most nations' guns.

But some courageous countries are pushing the envelope in this respect. One valuable portion of outer space is the so-called geostationary orbit, located approximately 22,300 miles above the earth's equator. Satellites in this orbit appear stationary relative to the ground, which is useful for communications, weather surveillance, and other purposes. Recognizing a revenue opportunity when they saw one, eight equatorial countries proclaimed in the Bogota Declaration of 1976 that they owned the portion of the geostationary orbit above their territories. They demanded that any nation wishing to place satellites in said orbit first obtain permission from the country beneath. Since the equatorial nations' ability to enforce this claim at the time was approximately zilch, the U.S. and other developed countries said: In your dreams. But you wait. If Ecuador ever perfects that 23,000-mile-range surface-to-space missile, I'll bet negotiations get reopened real quick.

Source
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah, posting something coming out of Canada,.... I don't think helps farther the discussion much.
 
Top