Is this Constitutional under the 4th Amendment?
OAKLAND (CBS SF) — Hidden microphones that are part of a clandestine government surveillance program that has been operating around the Bay Area has been exposed....
Excerpt:
Jeff Harp, a KPIX 5 security analyst and former FBI special agent said:
“They put microphones under rocks, they put microphones in trees, they plant microphones in equipment. I mean, there’s microphones that are planted in places that people don’t think about, because that’s the intent!”
How was this exposed? The Feds are trying to use these secret recordings in 2010-2011 as evidence against real estate investors accused of bid rigging. So is this constitutional? Are you surprised? What are your thoughts?
I'm not surprised, since it's been legal to setup hidden listening devices and visual recorders just about anywhere without a warrant except within someone's buildings. The key rulings hinge on "expectation of privacy" and lawyers/judges apparently think that everyone should expect to be monitored whenever they're not inside a building. I suppose it goes without saying that any public arena including buildings is probably fair game too. Probably they think you should have no expectation of privacy if you're sitting in a room with a window too, so don't rule out devices that take advantage of that either. I suppose as technology advances sufficiently, we should just have no expectation of privacy anywhere, and all the privacy laws will be thrown out by the courts.
Yeah. I think there is a lot more that goes on than people are led to believe so my expectation is that everything is recorded. There haven't been enough challenges and I don't really trust the Supreme Court to rule correctly anyways. Nonetheless it's good to challenge the government on this issue. I think constitutionally the bigger question than 'expectation of privacy' should be the 'expectation of non-surveillance'. That is more consistent with the intent of the 4th amendment that is explicit about being specific:
Mass surveillance of any kind is contrary to both the enumerated powers of the government and the 4th amendment.
Yes, that's a good point about expecting 'non-surveillance.'
Also, consider how much data they already collect that they're not analyzing properly and/or not acting on. Governments that let people slip before an attack (whether it's due to incompetence or some other reason) shouldn't respond to the attack by asking their law-abiding citizens to give up more privacy. In the U.S. in particular, the post-attack time is often used to push govt. agendas. :/
Here's a random link that mentions open fields as being protected in some states (but not normally): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy
Nevertheless, I don't recommend you try this at home, boys and girls. Say for example you overhear a conversation in a public area between two company executives, then make a large stock transaction based on that information. I strongly suspect that you'll have problems using the defense that you used "publicly available information".
If they can use that info, why can't I? ;)