Preserving American Privacy Act- Bill to STOP Surveillance of Americans With Drones!

Several representatives have introduced legislation, H.R. 6199, called the Preserving American Privacy Act, to stop the use of these darned drones for surveillance on Amerikans in the Police State Homeland. Oh, you mean there is someone who actually cares?

Maybe.

The Constitution limits eavesdropping, snooping, and spying on American citizens. While there are some legitimate uses for drones domestically, such as monitoring forest fires, floods and hurricanes, tracking an escaped bank robber, and other law enforcement uses, it is up to Congress to define and limit their use so that the Fourth Amendment and the right of privacy are protected.

That is why I am introducing the Preserving American Privacy Act. Now is the time for Congress to act, not in 2015. With the increased technology of surveillance, Congress must be proactive in protecting civilians from drone surveillance by law enforcement and other private citizens. This bill will ensure the privacy of Americans is protected by establishing guidelines about when and for what purpose law enforcement agencies, private citizens, and businesses can use drones.

First, it would prevent the FAA from issuing a permit for the use of a drone to fly in the United States airspace for the law enforcement purposes unless it is pursuant to a warrant and in the investigation of a felony. This would apply to Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. The warrant exceptions and exigent circumstances rules that are already the law of the land would be the same as those that are applicable in the Federal, State, or local jurisdiction where that surveillance occurs. The bill also includes a clear statement so that it does not prevent the use of drones for border security purposes. Bottom line: no one should be spying on you unless they have the legal authority to do so.

It would also prevent the FAA from issuing a permit to any private individual for the use of a drone for the surveillance of a U.S. citizen or the property of a U.S. citizen unless that person under surveillance has consented or the owner of the property has consented.

www.humanevents.com...

Technology may change with time, but the Constitution does not.

Yeah? Well how about telling that to the last couple of administrations, one who called it a "G'damned piece of paper," and the next who seeks to rid the populace of guns and ignore the Second. Warrantless wiretapping anyone? Freedom from illegal searches and seizures? That's why Tom Drake, a high ranking NSA official quit over the changes to FISA laws when he saw it trashed the constitution.

Anyway, perhaps a bit of good news that will probably go nowhere.

This bill has a 2% chance of being enacted.

Status: Referred to Committee

More on Bill here:
www.govtrack.us...

Text of Bill here:
www.govtrack.us...

Behold the names of those in the House that would dare go against Big Brother:

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. PITTS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SOUTHERLAND, and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Flawed premise to begin with. Your privacy doesn't extent outside where it's open for anyone to see.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Flawed premise to begin with. Your privacy doesn't extent outside where it's open for anyone to see.

Then that blows cops defenses of being video taped right out of the water right?

Its a noble effort by these politicians but it wont do any good, this is the future, (or the now) get used to it.

They never have had a defense about being filmed. They can claim that but it wont stick.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They never have had a defense about being filmed. They can claim that but it wont stick.

Well, yes they did, as well the DA's. Cases have gone to court, luckily most if not all were thrown out but it still costs the person a couple days in jail, bond money and lawyer fees.
Unlike a civil trial, you cant "sue" for lawyer fees in a criminal trial.

Cops can throw anyone in jail and come up with some excuse. That's hardly a "defense".

Technology may change with time, but the Constitution does not.

That is wishfull thinking. If that were true the constitution would only apply to white men- so no voting for the girls or the blacks, prohibition would never had happened and we would still have slavery.

A drone flying over is not violating the constitution. A bird's eye view of your house is not search nor a seizure. It is not that I am "pro-drone" im just anti-stupid,

Technology may change with time, but the Constitution does not.

remind me again how many consitutional ammendments have been made