OUTRAGED Midwest Farmers Protest EPA Spy Planes Over Iowa Ranches

[gallantwarrior]

I already have been to the joint......

I'm not afraid of prison...... Been there done that shit.

Besides, what makes you think I would go to prison for shooting a drone down??? - a drone that is spying on me??

It is a federal crime to shoot at ANY aircraft.
Unless of course the shooting is sanctioned by the govt.

Good they could make their case in court........

You can bet your ass that 75% of the American public would be on my side if I shot one of those fucking things down...... Besides - I would love to see the government prove that I as an individual did it in the first place.

With the speed this government is rolling over the cliff, they probably wouldn't let proving such an allegation stand in the way of removing you from your current situation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Where do we draw the line???

When your privacy rights are actually being violated. You know, there are states where government spies are hired to walk around all day, drive cars, ride horseback, whatever, just to watch everyone walking by and see if they're doing something illegal. They call them police officers. Maybe we should draw the line?

Get serious.

Whats going to happen when these drones are armed with infrared cameras and they are peeping in on you and the wife getting it in bed?

Slippery slope BS. May as well be saying that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people having sex with their farm animals. May as well object to the existence of a police force, because they might have infrared cameras that are watching you have anal sex with your wife, trying out her new strap-on.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Obama has used the EPA for his own personal agend since he became dictator. EPA fly oversk tapped phonek snooping on the internet, it is his way of spying on the rest of us. Wake up libs, he is checking on you too.

You think they don't know that? Why do you think they so slavishly adore Him and his regime? Big Brother is watching. There are still some of us honest enough to "voice" our own views instead of the lockstep regime's talking points.

 

[Si modo]

Where do we draw the line???

When your privacy rights are actually being violated. You know, there are states where government spies are hired to walk around all day, drive cars, ride horseback, whatever, just to watch everyone walking by and see if they're doing something illegal. They call them police officers. Maybe we should draw the line?

Get serious.

Whats going to happen when these drones are armed with infrared cameras and they are peeping in on you and the wife getting it in bed?

Slippery slope BS. May as well be saying that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people having sex with their farm animals. May as well object to the existence of a police force, because they might have infrared cameras that are watching you have anal sex with your wife, trying out her new strap-on.

It's not bullshit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

well because the two are same..one is illegal and the other produces the food you eat
good grief

You mean the other produces E Coli outbreaks in the food we eat don't you? I don't like getting deathly ill from eating fresh produce, maybe you are different.

then don't eat..

And that illustrates the intellectual validity of your position.

 

[Si modo]

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Anyone bitching about this have a better idea to keep manure from contaminating irrigation water? Or better yet, is anyone just not in favor of a safe food supply that will not have you and your children shitting blood on regular basis?

Really, my Family never shits blood lol

Not my family, either. And we live on a farm. My neighbors, who also live on farms, they don't shit blood, either. Not only that, but we probably have some of the safest food you can imagine.
Go figure!

 

[Inthemiddle]

If I was a farmer I would shoot those drones out of the sky..... That is 100% fact.

Good. Then we wouldn't have to listen to your garbage on the board anymore, since you'd be spending the rest of your life in prison.

 

[The T]

I think the damned things if seen by these property owners should be shot down as invaders.

PERIOD.

 

[Conservative]

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Facts

Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI was recording his conversations via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the phone booth. Katz was convicted based on these recordings. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the recordings were obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals sided with the FBI because there was no physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

Do they need a warrant to come in your house? Yes.
Do they need a warrant to go onto your property? Yes.

Why do you think they don't need a warrant to fly over your property and look?

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

They've been flying over power plants for years, apparently, and no one has objected to that.

Don't these farms benefit from the farm bill? In other words, we are subsidizing them. They should be happy to be open to inspection.

 

[Douger]

Gotta keep those farmers safe.
Might be Islamofascists lurking in the fieelds spreading bio weapons on our food.

Yeah. Competition for Monsanto.

 

[Si modo]

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Facts

Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI was recording his conversations via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the phone booth. Katz was convicted based on these recordings. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the recordings were obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals sided with the FBI because there was no physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

 

[The T]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Precisely.

 

[Si modo]

They don't need a warrant to walk right up to your line and look at whatever they happen to see within plain view. Why do you think they need a warrant to look at whatever they happen to see within plain view, from thousands of feet in the air?

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

They've been flying over power plants for years, apparently, and no one has objected to that.

Don't these farms benefit from the farm bill? In other words, we are subsidizing them. They should be happy to be open to inspection.

If the plants routinely have air traffic over them, then the plants have no expectation of privacy from the air.

I would imagine that is why they haven't been challenged. Or maybe they haven't been challenged because the plants see no cost effectiveness to doing so.

 

[Ravi]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

 

[Si modo]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Precisely.

And, sorry...correction...it's United States v Allen.

 

[Ravi]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

They've been flying over power plants for years, apparently, and no one has objected to that.

Don't these farms benefit from the farm bill? In other words, we are subsidizing them. They should be happy to be open to inspection.

If the plants routinely have air traffic over them, then the plants have no expectation of privacy from the air.

I would imagine that is why they haven't been challenged. Or maybe they haven't been challenged because the plants see no cost effectiveness to doing so.

But you don't feel that being subsidized by the taxpayers give the taxpayers the right to inspect them, via the EPA?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Gotta keep those farmers safe.
Might be Islamofascists lurking in the fieelds spreading bio weapons on our food.

Yeah. Competition for Monsanto.

You really aren't far off with that comment. Big agri owns our politicians and many of the laws, regulations, and ordinances passed by government that impair food production in this country exempt those very entities that cause the majority of what we are being "protected" against.