Re: Spy planes was: Transhuman fascists?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sun Apr 02 2000 - 12:48:43 MDT wrote:
> In a message dated 3/28/00 11:09:21 PM Central Standard Time,
> writes:
> > Do we really have a civil right to privacy?
> The US constitutional "right to privacy" is said to be "penumbral", i.e. it
> is inferred from (or "found in the shadows of") other, more explicit rights,
> such as the 1st (free expression), 4th (freedom from unreasonable search and
> seizure) and 5th and 14th (freedom from self-incrimination and right to due
> process) amendments in the Bill of Rights. Thus constitutional rights to
> privacy tend to be much more a matter of decisional common law than in some
> other areas.

But only in that most courts today seem to have total ignorance or
distain for the 9th Amendment, and are drifting away from the founders
concepts of Natural Law. Under the 9th, any rights not enumerated in the
Constitution are retained by the people, as individuals, so it follows
that since privacy is not explicitly mentioned, it is a 9th Amendment

> > I know we have always
> > assumed that we do, but suppose I have one of those cool airplane
> > thingies with the 18 gram camera in it, 15 cm wingspan, 75 gram
> > total. I fly it over your house and for some reason I like to gawk
> > at you. Have I actually broken any laws?
> I don't believe one has "positive" rights to the airspace above one's
> property, but rather "negative" rights arising from ownership of land. Thus
> one has the right to be free from the nuisance, for instance, that might be
> created by low-flying aircraft. In any kind of normal case, one certainly
> doesn't have the right to keep someone from looking at you. This makes
> "paparazzi" cases difficult for celebrities.

Yes, anyone on your neighbors property, or on public property contiguous
to your own has a right to view what they can of your property and any
goings on as a consequence of their own rights to enjoy their property.
This also applies in reverse where you get nuisances: If I'm doing
something on my property that is in plain veiw of or within hearing
distance of your property, which you judge to impact on your peace,
comfort, repose, and general usage of your property (including the
market value of your property), you have grounds for a tort on that

Paparazzi hanging outside your property, or flying over your property,
could be construed as creating a nuisance and impacting your enjoyment
of your property.

However, if you take measures on your own property to limit the ability
of others on contiguous property to view your property or hear the
goings on there, and those measures reside totally on your property,
like, say, a 12' wall around the perimeter of your property, just within
the property line, then outside parties cannot climb that wall (since
its on your property, so thats trespassing). The problem is in
constructing your barrier so as to eliminate as many, if not all,
potential angles of view. Dome over your property with a one-way
transparency would definitely eliminate the potential for observation,
though I'm not sure how well 'one way mirrors' work when you are dealing
with IR frequencies.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:59 MDT