The Alaska Supreme Court takes aerial surveillance's threat to privacy seriously

Re:The Alaska Supreme Court takes aerial surveillance's thre... by dihydro on Monday June 03, 2024 @01:40PM (#40565147)

I believe a test that would pass muster could be a "passer-by" test. If a person, unaided by technology, can from a public property, see something in or on the property, while passing by at a walking pace, no warrant is needed. Anything further should require a warrant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Alaska Supreme Court takes aerial surveillance's thre... by hiatus on Monday June 03, 2024 @02:26PM (#40565719)

> If a person, unaided by technology, can from a public property, see something in or on the property, while passing by at a walking pace, no warrant is needed.

Is the person allowed to wear glasses? If so, what do you view the limit to be for allowed technology? Binoculars and telescopes use similar technology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Alaska Supreme Court takes aerial surveillance's thre... by brain-tree on Monday June 03, 2024 @03:29PM (#40566559)

I feel like the state has wasted more than enough energy defining the difference between a prescription to treat a demonstrable physical deficit and snorting crystal meth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Alaska Supreme Court takes aerial surveillance's thre... by bell-cot on Monday June 03, 2024 @01:49PM (#40565246)

Being Alaska, my first thought is that your "passer-by" may also be on horseback - so long as he's in a location where a somewhat prudent horseman might ventured while mounted.

And maybe add similar tests for the passer-by hearing or smelling things?

[ Parent | on HN ]