Skip to main content

OMG: The Birchers were right! There are government helicopters, and they seem to be . . . examining our cattle

Sometimes the truth is at least as
strange as fiction:  at least when the
truth involves government
bureaucrats with unlimited budgets.
I actually (as strange as it seems) don't think I'm kidding.

Here's the wikipedia entry introduction on "Black Helicopters" [with emphasis added]:
Black helicopters is a term which became popular in the United States militia movement and its associated political circles in the 1990s as a symbol and warning sign of an alleged conspiratorial military takeover of the United States, though it has also been associated with men in black and similar conspiracies.[1] Rumors circulated that, for instance, the United Nations patrolled the US with unmarked black helicopters, or that federal agents used black helicopters to enforce wildlife laws.
--snip--

Media attention to black helicopters increased in February 1995, when first-term Republican northern Idaho Representative Helen Chenoweth charged that armed federal agents were landing black helicopters on Idaho ranchers' property to enforce the Endangered Species Act. "I have never seen them," Chenoweth said in an interview in The New York Times. "But enough people in my district have become concerned that I can't just ignore it. We do have some proof."[6] Chenoweth made the charges at a press conferencewithout ever consulting with the Department of the Interior.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the act, claims not to own any helicopters. 

Fast forward to . . . yesterday.

In which we discover that, ok, it isn't the Fish and Wildlife Service, but the Environmental Protection Agency using helicopters to monitor ranchers in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri:

A bipartisan group of Capitol Hill lawmakers is pressing EPA Director Lisa Jackson to answer questions about privacy issues and other concerns after the agency used aerial surveillance to monitor livestock operations over their home state of Nebraska.
“Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska pride themselves in the stewardship of our state’s natural resources. As you might imagine, this practice has resulted in privacy concerns among our constituents and raises several questions,” says the letter signed by Republican Reps. Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, as well as Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and GOP Sen. Mike Johanns.
Smith, co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus, said Tuesday the operations in many cases are near homes so “landowners deserve legitimate justification given the sensitivity of the information gathered by the flyovers.”
The letter asks nearly two-dozen questions including why the inspections are being conducted, how many flights have occurred and whether they have resulted in any enforcement activities.
“Nebraskans are rightfully skeptical of an agency which continues to unilaterally insert itself into the affairs of rural America,” Smith added.
The Environmental Protection Agency uses aerial surveillance across a swath of the Midwest known as Section 7 – which  includes Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and  Missouri -- and has defended the practice as cost-efficient.

Thus far the EPA has declined to respond to this inquiry.

It is important to note that The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law has noted for over fifteen years the drift in 4th Amendment court decisions favoring law enforcement and government regulators conducting aerial surveillance over private property owners:

Modern cases involving aerial surveillance using airplanes and helicopters give the best insight into how the courts have in the past and will in the future deal with this issue. One case, for example, involved the EPA taking surveillance photos of a chemical company's property without a warrant. Even though the chemical company had refused entrance in an attempt to protect trade secrets, the court found that the surveillance was reasonable because it was an industrial setting and because the chemical company had made no attempts to protect itself from aerial intrusions. A similar decision resulted when police officers, while hovering in a helicopter, took photos of marijuana plants growing in the back yard of an individual's home. The individual had built a 10-foot fence to prevent intrusions, but the court reasoned that the officers were in navigable airspace and that there was no physical intrusion. Therefore, the surveillance was reasonable and hence no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The courts continue to construe the Fourth Amendment in favor of law enforcement, ensuring the demise of personal privacy and ignoring the arrival of future high-end technology. 

Other factors affecting whether a property is within the reasonable expectation of privacy by society's standards, includes the location of the property and the circumstances surrounding the means of surveillance. A home expects the greatest degree of privacy. It is generally thought of as an intimate setting, and any unwarranted search would be deemed unreasonable. Industrial property and open areas, however, do not share the same benefits of privacy and protection offered by the Fourth Amendment as homes, because unlike homes, they can generally be observed with the naked eye and are more accessible to the public. The altitude and frequency of the local air traffic is also a factor in the reasonableness equation. The more frequent and the lower the air traffic is in the area, the greater the possibility of someone observing the property below. Consequently, because the likelihood of observing the property increases, the individuals on that property should have a lower expectation of privacy. This presumes that people who leave objects outside impliedly assume the risk that it will be observed and therefore consent to this observation. This belief is clearly erroneous. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...