Depends on what their gear is. If they're only looking at things an average person can already see, but on a large scale? Eh, can't really argue with that. If it's in the public eye, it ain't private.
If they're trying to read the heat coming off of buildings, or laser-micing windows, or otherwise trying to look into areas that are not public, they need to knock it off and get a warrant based on probable cause first.
Then maybe we should be talking about what people (and governments) should do, rather than what they can do. Perhaps you think it's appropriate for the government to record your every step, just in case. I don't.
Perhaps, but that's an open question with a different resolution. It would take nothing short of an act of congress, possibly even constitutional amendments to redefine the current legal doctrine surrounding public and private spaces into what you suggest.
Me, I find it very hard to get worked up over someone recording what I'm doing in public.
Not at all. The right to privacy, while not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, is recognized by the Supreme Court and the basis of most modern boundaries on what government can and cannot do with regard to surveillance without a warrant. New technology that makes it possible to observe "public" behavior in ways that were previously impossible is still subject to the right to privacy, and courts may well rule it intrusive and unconstitutional.
Consider the case of license-reading cameras. Not intrusive, right? But that data, not being collected under warrant, is more or less public, at least obtainable via FOIA requests. It's already been demonstrated that this data can be used to trace someone's address (and other critical addresses, like work or favorite stores) quickly. So it's not just a matter of government collecting "public" data... it's making it available to anyone, some of whom may not have your best interests at heart.
Now, imagine you have a violent ex who might well kill you if they could find you. I know multiple people in that situation. And government surveillance data, publicly available with a little effort, could find you. Is that okay?
> The right to privacy, while not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, is recognized by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court decision you speak of also makes very clear in its ruling that there is, legally speaking, no such thing as a "general right to privacy". It simply doesn't exist in U.S. jurisprudence. There can be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in many situations, but that's not quite the same thing.
Of course, courts can rule things unconstitutional and break with prior precedent anyways. But until they do police aerial surveillance is not only "not illegal", but it's been to the Supreme Court already and upheld.
> New technology that makes it possible to observe "public" behavior in ways that were previously impossible is still subject to the right to privacy, and courts may well rule it intrusive and unconstitutional.
Airplanes are simply not "new" technology. Nor are helicopters. Nor are cameras, or radio control. I watched helicopter footage of O.J. fleeing in a white Bronco as a child. None of this is "new".
Those helicopters pursuing O.J. were private helicopters, not subject to jurisdictional restrictions or limitations on their interactions with general citizens. Police Departments have explicit charters that state their purpose and scope. Likely to your chagrin, the words "surveillance" and "intelligence" do not appear in the Baltimore PD's charter. (See below [1]) Furthermore, using airplanes, helicopters, cameras and radio control to pursue someone (note, my specific use of someone) that the police have good reason to believe committed a crime is perfectly fine, and that is the context of the legal doctrines you reference. Do you actually think that the police have articuable suspicion that everyone whose video/cell phone information is being recorded by these surveillance planes has committed a crime? That's to say nothing of the jurisdictional overreach (if not in letter of the law, then in spirit of the law) in asking the FBI to come in and use these toys of war on local citizens who have not committed any federal offenses. The Baltimore PD charter repeatedly makes reference to the "boundaries of the city."
Lastly, you'll notice that the most recent developments in GPS tracking state that warrants are required to use GPS trackers even when police have reasonable suspicion. [2] Since the ostensible reasons for using these drones are to track the movements of individuals, and Stingray devices essentially have that as their sole feature, do you really think it's justified to (quite possibly illegally) track all of these "innocent until proven guilty" citizens using aerial drones? We aren't just talking about a few people who stole a car or are fleeing the scene of a murder. This is wholesale tracking of everyone on the streets -- and possibly in their homes if cell signals are being monitored -- in a 10 mile radius of Inner Harbor.
What about my backyard? What about the roof of my house? My neighbors can't see all of that area due to one reason or another (fences, trees, lack of windows on their house, etc. etc.) As many others have already noted, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Well, this case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley pertains to your question. Some of the dissenting opinions raise the same questions you do, but there's a reason I had to call them 'dissenting opinions'.
If indeed these drones are using Dirtboxes and are indiscriminately tracking people based on cell phone signatures, then I would posit that the combination of [1] and [2], and ongoing issues like [3], make what law enforcement is doing Baltimore disgustingly illegal and oppressive. Targeted and specific aerial imagery and inspection is a totally different ballpark than what these drones are doing.
If they're trying to read the heat coming off of buildings, or laser-micing windows, or otherwise trying to look into areas that are not public, they need to knock it off and get a warrant based on probable cause first.