With the onslaught of cellphone tapping, domestically flying drones and Internet browsers that remember every website we've ever visited, it's fair to say that our liberties are being undermined. And though this claim has been heralded since the dawn of civilization, we are currently in a position to effectively confront the transgressions of lawmakers.
Civil drone surveillance is unfortunately not a new matter (President Obama's approval of the National Defense Authorization Act subsequently approved the limited use of drones in civil skies), but it has received some worrisome support from a recent add-on aimed at the Federal Aviation Administration.
Last Tuesday, Obama signed a law that allows drones to be flown in U.S. skies for commercial, as well as governmental, ventures.
Within 90 days, the FAA must allow police to fly drones domestically, so long as these drones meet certain standards, are reasonably sized (less than 5 pounds) and don't soar over 400 feet. Within the next few years, the FAA must also allow the use of private and commercial drones within U.S. airspace.
This law may seem benign, even beneficial, at first glance. But quicker, cheaper and more accurate police responses and the emergence of a new commercial market are accompanied by freedoms for drone "pilots" that impede on freedoms of those "on the ground."
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable, unwarranted searches and seizures and the violation of a citizen's security "in their persons, houses, papers and effects."
With the passage of this new law, the Fourth Amendment must be reinterpreted (or rewritten).
In the past, police were only issued search warrants upon probable cause - a cause that had to be detailed, justified and court-ordered. They also had to issue the warrant in person, at the door.
Now, with a drone, a lens and a live video feed, police forces have the capacity to search and track individuals without the formal consent of a magistrate, judge or court.
And individuals can perform similar actions for commercial profit, selling aerial photos of your house, backyard, transit — you name it.
The boundaries for what constitutes privacy are quickly being redrawn.
I don't wholly reject this new law. Drones provide many advantages, from more precise tracking of at-large criminals to saving countless dollars that would have otherwise been spent on manned helicopters with similar functions. In the commercial sector, drones can be used in real estate, wildlife maintenance and agricultural management. The unmanned aerial perspective offers benefits that could have only been attained at a more significant financial and time cost.
But to offer a carte blanche is asking for and legitimizing increased violation of personal liberty than it is benefiting social and economic security.
This law needs to be written in a way that cannot be misinterpreted by those pilots who stand to gain from the violation of personal liberties. It must detail the limits of where these drones can go, what they can record, to what extent and with whose consent.
The basic liberties, and those secured by the Bill of Rights, must be prioritized over commercial, corporate and governmental interests.
It is up to us as citizens to voice our opposition to laws that undermine these liberties, just as we voiced opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act when faced with the more immediate inconvenience of the Internet blackout. With the insight that such laws are being pushed and passed through Congress and the White House, we must actively reject the bystander effect and assume accountability for founding our future.
Dyllan Furness is a philosophy and English junior at UF. His column appears on Tuesdays.
