Guest Opinion: Privacy Endangered by High-tech Surveillance

By Errol Speed

Washington State Constitution

Article 1 Section 7 – INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS PROHIBITED – No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without the authority of law.

The Washington Supreme Court has interpreted the prohibition against illegal searches and seizures under the Washington Constitution independent of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A main reason for such an independent interpretation is the textual difference between the federal and state provisions.

The court has determined that not only do the citizens of Washington have a right to be free from governmental intrusions in their homes, but they also have a right to “‘ an explicit protection not found in the Fourth Amendment… ‘private affairs’. Private affairs are said to include “‘ those privacy interests which citizens of (Washington) have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from government trespass, absent a warrant.”‘

In the context of private affairs, the Washington high court has interpreted the state constitution as providing greater protection to its citizens…

Dear Council Members,

The San Juan County Council should seriously consider the ramifications of the proposed new plan to contract for aerial surveillance imagery that not only contains direct overhead views, but oblique angled views that further invade the privacy of its citizens, using high magnification telescopic lenses. In light of the above current interpretation of Article 1 Section 7 of the Washington Constitution by the Washington State Supreme Court, it is very likely that this type of aerial surveillance is unconstitutional.

Some of the issues and questions surrounding this type of government created aerial surveillance photography are as follows;

– Has the Council established regulations, restrictions, requirements, and protocols within county ordinance concerning the use of this imagery? (currently the County uses Polaris imagery and Google, what controls exist now?)

– Has the Council researched and concluded that the privacy interests of its citizens will not be unlawfully intruded upon?

– The only legal image of ones property, absent a search warrant, from the public airspace is from the minimum legal altitude above ground level (AGL) with the naked eye (naked eye defined as,”the unaided eye; eye without the help of any optical devices). This has been established by court interpretation and case law.

– Has the Council established what the naked eye view at the minimum legal altitude would look like for each individual property it wants to surveil? Also complicating this issue even more is the fact that the minimum legal altitude may change depending on location( topography,density, hazards), thus creating an unequal level of privacy for citizens living in various locations. Counterintuitively, the more rural residents would likely be less protected in their privacy interest than the town resident, even though by their choice to live in a more rural locale it is implied that they value their privacy more .

– With the prospect of oblique angled views, as well as direct overhead views of each citizens home, surrounding area, and any assorted other structures, won’t these be a de facto illegal government intrusion/search of a persons protected private affairs?

(keeping in mind the Washington Constitution provides more protection than the United States Constitution)

– Is it legal to use government created aerial telescopic imagery to surveil the private affairs of its citizens without their permission and absent authority of law?

Even in the hands of good intentioned and honest individuals this imagery and it’s developing uses should give great pause to council members who represent their citizens. In the hands of those who have ill intention or personal reasons to abuse this information, ” A Brave New World” becomes a reality.

Please vote against continuation of this contract until the ramifications have been thoroughly researched, the consequences to the peoples privacy fleshed out and debated in public forum, and the overwhelming majority of residents are in support.

Thank you for your attention,