Remote sensing project

Annotated Bibliography Hiltner, P. J. The drones are coming: Use of unmanned aerial vehicles for police surveillance and its fourth amendment implications. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 3(2), 397-415.
Hiltner’s “ Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Police Surveillance and its Fourth Amendment Implications” is documentation on the use of technology to maintain law and order in the US, and whether or not the invention is potential in the fight against crime and terror. As carried on by the military with the use of drones, police departments across the states have experimented on the use of unmanned aerial systems (UAss) to expedite the surveillance system. According to Hiltner, this law enforcement project requires legislation, air industry embracement and social acceptance of the American people; since an estimated 30000 drones will be expected to be across the US airspace by 2020 (Hiltner, 2013, p 398). Hiltner proposes the advantages and ease of execution of police roles with the integration of the UAss, as highlighted by their manufacturer and mandated by the constitution of the United States.
Koppel, A. 2010. Warranting a warrant: Fourth amendment concerns raised by law enforcements warrantless use of GPS and cellular phone tracking. University of Miami Law Review, 64, 1062-1090.
Koppel’s “ Warranting a warrant” discuses the use of the Fourth Amendment in enhancing privacy and the use of modern technological gadget that may intrude the essence of privacy without a warrant. He uses the concept of a search warrant to emphasize the application of the fourth Amendment in providing rights to protection against the violation of private property. The document provides relevance in the use of police drones as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the action is significant in the provision of security in the US. In this case, Koppel concludes that the Fourth Amendment should be reconstructed in a manner that conserves general public interest as well as individual rights.
Kyllo v. United States. (2001). Kyllo v. United States 533 U. S. 27 (2001). Retrieved from http://caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/scripts/getcase. pl? court= US&vol= 000&invol= 99-8508
Kyllo vs United States explores the use of legal approaches by law enforces in the aim of attaining peace and security. The use of a device that is not in public utility to conduct private search can be classified under violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this case the use of drones in surveillance activities by the police force can be viewed as an act of trespass which is against the rights of individual privacy. The fact that drones are not silent portrays violation of privacy as people tend to feel they are under surveillance when drones pass by their homes. Katina
Michael, K., & M. Michael. 2013. No limits to watching? Communications of the ACM, 56(11), 26-28. doi: 10. 1145/2527187
Michael, MG Michael discusses how modern technology has influenced the invasion of people’s privacy. The use of “ embedded sensors on wearers” is one of the modern technology inventions which are aimed at acquiring information on a person’s nature. The article is relevant to the topic of discussion as it explains the pros and cons of privacy invasion. Similarly to the introduction of drones in the police force, embedded sensors are newly introduced gadgets used to acquire personal information indirectly from a person.
Rushin, S. 2011. The judicial response to mass police surveillance. Journal of Law, Technology, and Policy, 2011(2), 281-329.
Rushin talks about how the use of modern advanced technology by the police threatens people’s privacy in the document, ‘ The Judicial Response to Mass Police Surveillance’ (Rushin, 2011, p. 282). He describes these innovations as new technology harms. This is due to the risks behind using the new technological gadgets in private and public surveillance. Rushin suggests that the federal court ought to create regulations on the use of police surveillance gadgets in order to address the public panic created by the idea of a widespread in police surveillance. This aspect contributes to the discussion behind a reassessment of the Fourth Amendment doctrine (Rushin, 2011, p. 282).
Thompson, R. M. 2013, April 3. Drones in domestic surveillance operations: Fourth amendment implications and legislative responses (Rep. No. R42701). Retrieved April 3, 2014, from Congressional Research Service website: http://www. fas. org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701. pdf
Richard . M. Thompson focuses on public reaction to drone use prospects by law enforcers in the United States. The unmanned aerial vehicles controlled by remote sensors which keep the operators away from harm. Many people are opposed to the independent operation of drones by law enforcers as they are prone to invasion of private and discrete information (Thompson, 2013, p. 2). Thompson discusses the results of the 113th Congress which was aimed at introducing several measures that would provide restrictions on the use of drones in both private and public environs.
Bleasdale T. (2014). Office of Legislative Research. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IMPLICATED BY THEDOMESTIC USE OF UNMANNED AERIALVEHICLES OR DRONES.
Timothy discuses the implication of privacy resulting from the use of drones by law enforcers on private and public properties in ‘ PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IMPLICATED BY THEDOMESTIC USE OF UNMANNED AERIALVEHICLES OR DRONES’. . He also focuses on the Fourth Amendment doctrine that prohibits seizure and unreasonable search (Bleasdale 2014, p. 2).