From the same people who thought traffic cameras were a great idea:
Picardi said he’s even experimenting with a Big Brother bonus for unmarked police cars: a tiny microphone positioned near the windshield so powerful it can pick up conversations on the street.
“You could pull into a street corner and, if there’s a drug deal going on a half-block away, you can hear what’s going on. You could have all the windows shut and the air-conditioning on and you could hear everything going on outside the vehicle,” Picardi said.
Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said he would be concerned if the police recorded those conversations without a warrant.
“It would raise serious questions under the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois eavesdropping law,” Yohnka said.
(via Drudge)
Tom
John, you bleeding-heart liberal! Everybody knows that if you’re a law-abiding citizen you should only have private conversations in the cone of silence. Only criminals talk out in the open!
Alan Kellogg
What expectation of privacy?
CaseyL
“Only someone who has something to hide can object to [INSERT INVESTIGATION/SURVEILLANCE POLICY HERE].”
I seem to recall words along those lines back when we still debated the War on Drugs, and some people objected to the 4th Amendment being shredded to bits – not only by the government, but by employers, too. But those who objected were mostly ‘soft on crime’ lefty libs, potheads, and a few eccentric libertarians.
I also seem to recall words along those lines back during the Clinton Wars, when Ken Starr and the GOP were dragging Secret Service agents, Clinton’s attorneys, Susan McDougal, Julia Hiatt Steele, Betty Wright, and assorted other persons into court. But only partisan Democrats cared about that, of course; everyone else understood that No One Is Above The Law, Even Presidents. (So quaint to think about that now.)
I also seem to recall words along those lines back when civil liberarians objected to the Patriot Act. Ah, but what are personal privacy and liberty issues, compared to the Needs of National Security?
Gary Farber
It seems to me there’s a significant difference between a traffic camera and this. A traffic camera, as I understand it, simply picks up what most by-standers can observe. As another commenter indicates above, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy insofar as what one’s vehicle is doing (if the camera can zoom in on a joint in the car’s ashtray, that would be different).
But while mikes on a car that can pick up what’s said within five feet, or if loud enough, a bit further, might be similar, one that can pick up what people are saying quietly half a block away is not similar. It does not replicate what a human at that distance would perceive. There’s a reasonable expectation that one’s conversation wouldn’t be overheard, if not under surveillance (naturally, if the police obtained a warrant before using such equipment, that would be fine).
In other words, traffic cameras don’t strike me as unjust. This does.
tom scott
Yeah, who would want Congressman McDougal following Newt Gringrich around? (You for forgot that one Casey.)
CaseyL
Who’s Congressmen McDougal, and when was he following Newt Gingrich around?
tom scott
My bad, casey. I should have looked it up.
It was Congressman McDermott not McDougal. The story is here.
Gregory Markle
If the ACLU were to widen it’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as wide as they have their interpretation of the 4th in this case, I’d be FORCED by the government to drive a tank to work in the interests of maintaining a well regulated militia.