By Debbie Burke
Photo credit: atimedia – Pixabay
What if a device measures your heart and respiration rate, body temperature, and blood pressure from almost 200 feet away without you ever knowing it? What if that intimate information is collected into a database? Who uses that information and what do they do with it?
Is this the premise for a dystopian/sci-fi/horror story?
Nope. It’s reality.
Pandemic drones created by the Canadian company Draganfly can do all that and more. In a video interview here, Draganfly CEO Cameron Chell claims the software will help public safety officials (in other words, law enforcement) track and prevent spread of disease.
Huh? Cops are now in charge of public health?
On April 21, 2020, Westport, Connecticut police announced implementation of pandemic drones that measure people’s body temperature, heart and respiration rate, and coughing and sneezing. Drones are already being used for enforcement of social distancing in New Jersey, Florida, and elsewhere.
The next day, the ACLU filed a protest statement saying, “Towns and the state should be wary of self-interested, privacy-invading companies using COVID-19 as a chance to market their products and create future business opportunities.”
Following public outcry, on April 23, Westport reversed its decision to use pandemic drones.
Is sneezing, coughing, or running a temperature a crime?
Does invasion of a person’s body by technology constitute unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
TKZers: What do you think?
~~~
Drones play a sinister role in Debbie Burke’s thriller Eyes in the Sky, available here.
Observing the public response to the pandemic, I no longer wonder whether a policy instituted by any level of government or the private sector violates the constitution. Some plainly do. Some, I believe, intentionally do.
Recently in a tiny personal blog, I witnessed a survivor of a Japanese prison camp on the (then) island of Java during World War II actually decry the lack of guards at the gate of her retirement community to keep residents from “sneaking out” to go shopping.
Which caused me to wonder how many violations of their constitutional rights the citizenry will accept, or even insist upon, for a modicum of perceived safety.
Intentionally… under the “mask” (if I can use the phrase-du-jour), of plausible deniability…
Ben Franklin put it pretty clearly: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben was a wise man, George.
Wow, Harvey, what a story of the Japanese prison camp survivor. Scary how the mind can be manipulated into going along with what someone else thinks you should believe/do. Kind of reminds me of the Stockholm Syndrome.
“Stockholm syndrome, psychological response wherein a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands.” – Britannica.com
One of my online friends works at WalMart, and her stories of idiots and utterly bonkers people is a walking advertisement for everything the hard liners suggest. One insane woman is using the mask protection to attack workers. She chased one with a hammer. The police are called, she is banned, and the police let her go with a warning. She changes her mask and clothing. Rinse and repeat. The workers are terrified that it will escalate. That’s just one story.
This situation definitely brings out the crazies in force, Marilynn. A hammer is assault with a deadly weapon. She should be in custody…except under current policies in many places, she wouldn’t be locked up b/c she might be exposed to the virus. Couldn’t she also contract it running around Walmart? Is it preferable to have her attacking innocent people like your friend?
“Towns and the state should be wary of self-interested, privacy-invading companies using COVID-19 as a chance to market their products and create future business opportunities…”
“Privacy-invading companies”?
What about privacy-invading governments/agencies?
Not to go all conspiracy theory here (but then, isn’t that the basis for some good thriller plots?), but it reminds me of infrared scans of houses to see if suspected pot farms are being green-housed inside suburban split-levels, traffic-cam ticketing at intersections and/or to see who’s in a vehicle, warranted use of private security (and ATM), cameras… so, yeah… I read 1984 and such growing up…and C.J. Box had the ATF (I believe), using military drones in a domestic capacity (albeit it was a rogue actor, but still, he based it on the actuality that they and others agencies have them, as well as other para- and not so para-military equipment).
All that to say, I can picture a monolithic corporate-government hiding behind the shield of “public health and safety” to go uber-Big Brother…
(Hmmmmm… maybe I ought to do more than just “picture…”)
George, I also noticed the conspicuous absence of the Fourth Amendment in the ACLU statement. When did they start worrying more about profits in the private sector than their mission as quoted below?
“For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation’s guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”
Sorry, Deb. I don’t believe ANYTHING the ACLU says about itself. I think the ACLU is simply practice for a revolution. Or, as my history prof said–when there was a lot less history to study–“ACLUeless bunch of people desperately looking for ACLUless bunch of people to lead.”
I like your history prof’s quote, Jim. I also don’t believe they have a lot of credibility. What struck me was the hypocrisy of claiming a noble purpose yet making a statement that totally ignores that purpose.
Good question, Debbie. Hopefully makes for a good discussion.
IMHO, use of technology in this manner constitutes a breach of so many of my rights. And of common decency. It’s hard to contemplate where this might (or will…) end. Contracting a disease is not a crime (yet). Hence, it’s nobody’s business if I cough, sneeze, sweat, or bleed out. Some unscrupulous folks out there in policy land are gonna have to rewrite law if technology is going to be harnessed in this way. I can only see one outcome. America (and other freedom-loving folks) as we know it will be no more. Our “rugged individualism” will be assimilated into the collective. But, before we get to that point, there’ll be a fight.
If I cast my mind back in time to when I was a teenager at my father’s dinner table, I remember taking part in some interesting discussions about this very thing. We’re talking mid-sixties. My parents used the dinner hour to pick our brains (and we theirs) about some weighty subjects, like should the US withdraw from the UN. Lively discussions were the norm. And a bit of arguing, Dad being “old school” and we young’uns claiming some smarts…which we had, but lacked experience.
We talked about technology and economics and the future. Dad foresaw a future where privacy was an archaic piece of antiquity. Now he’s living it, at age 87. It breaks his heart that he was right, and that so many are ignoring the slide we’re on.
He used to say, “You wait and see. If we don’t wake up, it’ll be up to the state whether we do or not.” Then he’d tell us we would have to be ready to revolt, but to do it at the ballot box when we were old enough. I haven’t missed voting since I was eighteen years old.
And here we are. The land of Dad’s future…
(Reading my comment over, it’s sure a downer. Sorry. But that’s where my head is. It doesn’t cheer me up any, either, when I hear people young and old say they don’t vote. There’s only a couple of things in this life that make me want to punch something, and that’s one of’em.)
Deb, your dad is a wise man. Perhaps the most valuable lesson he taught you is critical thinking.
The slope gets more slippery every day.
I can see the advantage of the drone in a situation much worse than this. I hope the technology isn’t destroyed in a case of a “zombie” apocalypse. Or a stupid apocalyse which we seem to be heading for right now.
I saw a news feature yesterday about a new body scanner for places like airports and large events. It takes the vitals very fast and scans over around a 1000 people an hour. It looks similar to weapons scanning gates at airports. Like it or not, but we will be scanned.
“Like it or not, but we will be scanned.”
Too true, Marilynn.
As far as collecting personal information to create profiles for marketing and profit opportunities, I think everyone of us would be against that.
.
But you bring up the topic of the police being in charge of public health… I think I see this a bit differently.
.
A hypothetical, if I may. That lady walking into the grocery store over there has the Covid virus. She has a fever. But like all of us, she needs to get food to feed herself and there’s nobody in her life who’s going to do the shopping for her. What choice does she have?
.
A drone flies by and sees her condition. It “calls” the authorities, who show up to get her away from the public.
.
Let’s say there’s a teenage boy in the store who would have come into some kind of contact with the woman – maybe touching the same bottle of Fanta the lady was handling earlier. The boy takes the virus home. His mother, who’s had severe asthma her whole life, gets sick. Then, she dies.
.
Much of American law exists to physically protect us from each other (“physically” being the operative word there). I’m as pro-Constitution as anyone you’ll encounter, yet I have no problem with this concept. Why is drunk driving illegal? Or firing handguns downtown?
.
I completely understand the concern I see people showing over this level of government intrusion in our daily lives. It is our responsibility to pay attention to what they are doing and why they are doing it. Once this virus thing is finished, if those drones are still flying around watching us, then we’ll have a problem we need to fix.
.
Another concern – how will that poor lady mentioned above feed herself?
.
These are just my opinions, but I thought I’d chime in. Thanks.
Carl, you raise valid points and thanks for adding your opinion.
My concern, like yours, is what happens after the immediate crisis. Once the drones are established as standard operating procedure, it will be difficult for us as citizens to reverse that surveillance.
I can hit clay pigeons pretty well. A drone’s a bigger target, and a slower target. 😉
Hahaha! Thanks for a smile, Carl.
How will that poor lady feed herself?
Instacart.
UberEats.
DoorDash.
I’m not with any of those, but there do seem to be options.
I place an online order with Walmart, select a pickup time, and drive down to the store where they have a separate parking area. Within a minute or two, a masked and gloved employee puts my groceries in the hatch of my car, and I drive off. Same goes for one of the other grocery stores in town.
What I’ve been pleasantly surprised with is the quality of produce. It seems their ‘pickers’ choose from the back of the store, from merchandise that hasn’t been out front where the public can handle it. In fact, I’ll be tempted to continue with this process after the restrictions are lifted.
Terry, interesting about the produce. Thanks for the tip.
One of many reasons I appreciate TKZ is the respect commenters show one another. We may disagree but we all recognize others have intelligent reasons for their opinions.
Thank you all!
To a large extent, this bird has already flown. If you are in England, China, or many other places, you are almost always being video monitored. Overlay real time video with cell data and I know who your are, where you shop, what route you took to get there, and with a few clicks, what you bought that day.
In the US, there are places where the police link up with local businesses. I live near such a place. In a normal year, the tourists and college students would be starting to roam the street. A police van has links to almost every businesses cameras as well as the city’s street cameras. The van has a local commander. You act a fool you will have a group of friends in blue shirts before you can say, “give me your wallet.” The irony is the temporary lock up that cuts the trip to the police station from 6 blocks to 3.
Law enforcement has bought DNA information from companies like 23andMe. It doesn’t matter that my DNA isn’t in their database, my children’s is and that would be enough to put me on a suspect list.
Alan, I fear you are correct–the bell can’t be unrung.
DNA databases are the ultimate warrantless search. Like you, I’m not sending my sample.
Ah, the slippery slope. I get the public safety element, but we have to ask ourselves how much flexibility we will allow in the Bill of Rights?
The First Amendment has been under assault for years, but primarily from social shaming. Some people will be targeted for ruin if they say the wrong thing to the wrong audience. But that’s not the government at work. That’s actually the government respecting the right to speak freely. Now, under the guise (justifiably, perhaps) of public safety, religious freedom and freedom of assembly are both being suspended by the government itself, at the whim of politicians.
Second Amendment assaults have been done to death and need no recap here. As for the Third, I haven’t heard any calls to quarter troops in our homes, so I think we’re okay.
This drone thing is, I think, clearly an assault on the Fourth Amendment, but it could also be deemed a public service. New York and Washington, DC, have technology in place to protect against nuclear dirty bombs, the sensitivity of which is such that they can also track the movement of patients who are undergoing nuclear therapies. Is this a violation of those patients’ rights, or necessary for public safety? Opinions will no doubt vary.
The devil lies in the details of what we do with the drone information. In Carl’s example above, where the sick woman is detected going into the store, what will the response be? Will the burden lie with the government to prove that she’s got the ‘rona and not just the flu? Will she be hauled off to the police station? Here’s where the Fifth Amendment comes into play. The Sixth Amendment guarantees her the right to a speedy trial before she is punished. Will this be accommodated? Will her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment protect her against, say, imprisonment for daring to try to feed herself? (Paging Jean Valjean.)
The Ben Franklin quote regarding the exchange of liberties in favor of safety is a constant test of the electorate. How much is too much? Drunk driving laws deny citizens the right to party hearty and drive themselves home. Is that an exchange of liberty for safety? Some states mandate that homeowners retreat from home invaders and depend on police intervention while others allow you to shoot ’em dead on the way in the door. Where’s the liberty/safety balance there?
I avoid posting raw politics anymore–certainly in this space–but much of this ‘rona response feels to me like a panic-driven overreach. The good news is, like Monday morning quarterbacks the world over, I don’t get to make the call. I only get to judge the actions of others from the comfort of hindsight.
I think someone once said, “Freedom is inherently dangerous.” Back when America was a youngster, the danger was easier to manage. Now, not so much. But I’d still rather have a small government and large personal freedom than the opposite. Is it too late?
It’s only as late as we let it be.
It’s a delicate balance, all right, John. Wish we could bring back the founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution and see what their reactions would be to current technology. And what solutions they could come up with.
That sounds like a great premise for a book. Time travel?
Deb, your next project!
Of course said drone is invasive. But is it really a surprise? Many cities already have cameras all over the place.
People have willingly been traipsing down the lack of privacy slope for a good long while. When grocery stores started their “club cards” to get sale prices I honestly don’t think people realized how much personal info they were giving up to save a quarter on toilet paper. You shopping habits reveal a lot of data about yourself, from income level to family size. You do realize that many websites follow you around the web, wherever you go, right? As discussed on this blog the other week it’s become the norm to give up all sorts of personal info about yourself through social media. And let’s not forget the millions who are gullible enough to give up their DNA, their most personal info of all, to any number of companies. They own your DNA forever. That’s. Just. Crazy.
As people give up more and more privacy, the more normalized giving up privacy becomes. If you complain about this, you become the bad person. Most Americans think Chinese style privacy invasions would never happen here, but do you really think we’re all that far off? I don’t.
“As people give up more and more privacy, the more normalized giving up privacy becomes.” Too true, Catfriend. People always think, “That only happens to the other guy,” until it happens to them.
I don’t think the drones, in and of. themselves, are a problem
I don’t think helping people behave in a responsible manner is wrong.
But,
GIVING THE DRONE INFORMATION TO POLITICIANS TO USE IN NEFARIOUS WAYS AND
LETTING THEM PUNISH PEOPLE WHO DON’T COMPLY WITHOUT BENEFIT OF EVEN HAVING A LAW IN PLACE.
IS INSANITY.
Once the drones are in place, politicians will invent other uses for them. Uses that purport to help people but will only benefit the politicians at the voting booth. Your rights be damned.
That’s my fear, Brian. These days, temporary decrees and emergency proclamations are treated with the force of law, even though they’re not laws.
The system works much more quickly and efficiently if politicians and bureaucrats don’t need to worry about pesky nuisances like civil rights, due process, and trials. Skip all those time-consuming steps, proclaim people guilty, and go straight to punishment. How easy is that?
Way too easy, which is scary.