>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant.
I realise that, but you said "I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge" so I inferred that you thought the judgement was incorrect.
>"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right?
I'm not sure if you're trolling here. The slash meant "or" in this case, which should be been patently obvious.
>Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye.
Of course, and it's not illegal AFAIK.
>Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars".
The article doesn't mention "automated license plate readers".
The question should be about how targeted the FBI's operations should be. Collecting as much data as possible does not seem targeted to me. I also think the value to society is dubious.
Is that in fact what they are doing? The story says that all their operations were all related to specific suspects in serious crime investigations. There seems to be an automatic presumption on HN that the FBI are up to no good.
What objection do you have with the FBI tracking criminal suspects from the air?
Do you also object to the FBI staking out suspects from their cars?
(I'm not referring to Stingrays here, just surveillance from the air with cameras/eyeballs).