recognition, improved analytics and wireless internet is possible to track specific individuals with multiple drones. uses extend from high-tech long-term surveillance to traffic enforcement. drones certainly have beneficial uses for search and rescue missions, firefighting, dangerous police tactical operations, these technological reality is point to significant possible arms if left unchecked. with the use of video cameras we have seen ongoing problems with lawyers and that racial profiling by operators. there is a persistent danger in monitoring that creates the real danger that people will change how they act in public weather at a protest rally or sunning themselves in their backyard. drones must be integrated to the federal airspace by 2015. the use of this technology is poised to explode, current law asrofessor maclin noted the w t.

supreme court authorized aerial surveillance and photography of private property. the court may eventually extend for amendment protection to ongoing and unlimited automated tracking but no cases have yet been decided around drone use. privacy protections are spotty in states that insure protections in their infancy. as the entity that regulates the sky's the federal government is in the best position to create rules for the use of drones' by law enforcement. the aclu recommends these rules be based on three key principles. first, no mass surveillance, no one should be spied upon by the government unless the government believes that person has committed a crime. drone use over private property shall only happen with a search warrant based on probable cause. the same standard used to search someone's house or business. it may be permissible to monitor individuals in public at a lower standard, perhaps reasonable suspicion, but the key is to prevent mass suspicionless

searches of the general population including for intelligence gathering. exceptions to this rule should be limited to emergencies connected to life and safety or narrowly drawn administrative exceptions. second, information collected from drones for one purpose, to combat a fire or perform search and rescue should not be used for another purpose such as general law-enforcement. information collected by drones should also be kept securely and destroyed promptly once it is no longer needed. third, drone's should not carry weapons. weapons developed on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan have no place in the united states. there is a consensus forming on this issue. heritage foundation and the international association of chiefs of police both support sharp limits on womanized drones. finally, oversight is crucial. communities, not just law enforcement must play a central role in whether to purchase the drone. like any new technology drone use must be monitored to make

sure it is a wise investment that works. jerome use should only -- drones should only be used as subject to a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and the invasions of privacy. the aclu believes some members of the committee have already taken great strides to find this balance with h.r. 67, of preserving americans privacy act. we support this bipartisan legislation and urge the committee to make markings it up a priority. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chair will recognize members to ask questions under the five minute rule and first cup is chairman of the full committee the gentleman from virginia. >> i appreciate you holding this hearing and your forbearance, i would ask my opening statement be made a part of the record. >> without objection. >> mr. villasenor, do you

believe the congress of the state's, which do you believe are in the best position to regulate on privacy grounds, court, congress or the states? >> in terms of regulating, is it specific to privacy? for privacy with respect to law-enforcement use, i am on record stating not believe the fourth amendment is going to provide more protection than recognized and would be for the courts. with respect to private parties which is not the focus of is much attention as public, at the state level you have statute against invasion of privacy, stockings, harassment, so there is a role at the state level to assure the statute primarily to anticipate how these pieces will occur. >> mr. mcneal, should congress regulate the use of unmanned aircraft or as mr. villasenor

suggested that could be lifted the state's? >> i am not sure. with regard to the privacy issues, i am not sure that you can get around privacy without congress doing it. >> let me rephrase. for commercial uses if we are concerned about privacy it seems congress is the most appropriate body to legislate so we have the equal law across the board, but in the same camp as mr. villasenor, if we think the fourth amendment protections that currently exist are sufficient, let me copy those over for commercial purposes and adopt those as our statutes for privacy protection. the problem with commercial use is we have a big body of law on privacy with regard to what law-enforcement those with fewer rules in regard to private parties and commercial parties might do. this is one of the things iin p

about, commercial use being just my neighbor flying around doing video for photography or is youtube page or real-estate purposes that start to look a lot like snooping or peeping tom kite things. some of that is covered by state law but when you look at the line of cases where people have been able to successfully sue when they feel their privacy rights are being violated you don't see a lot of success, it is a hy bar for people to overcome so there might be room for congress to regulate but i don't think when you look at the big-time commercial uses thinking about flights of unmanned systems for fedex and what not, privacy is not the big issue driving our concerns. is more safety concerns. >> mr. calabrese, i take it from

your warrant based approach to the use of you a s by governmental entities, you have an exception in an emergency situation. for example, if the men in boston had been somehow detected by drones, that would still be atoms admissible in court under your circumstances, following them down the street and they were in impeded from placing their explosives were not in a heated, that evidence is available to show they were the perpetrators of that crime? >> that is correct. there is a strong emergency exception that allows in cases of danger to life or limb, the use of drones in order to

provide -- to play out a scenario in terms of where they are in the investigation there's clearly a very strong emergency exception and an ability to act before warrant is issued. >> mr. maclin, can you explain how you a s may affect police discretion and whether police discretion is something that should be limited by statute? >> it should certainly be limited by statute. i'm talking about the ability of law enforcement to simply fly a drone over, examine, without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion and give you don't have either one of those two things you can't get a warrant. i takes light objection to the notion that if we are going to require warrants we should allow possibly allow warrants based on reasonable suspicion. putter that administrative search content when you need a warrant it has to be based on probable cause. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time is

the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> mr. calabrese, can you say a word about how the technology has complicated this issue in terms of the difference between one photograph of a way to fracking someone in public for a long period of time with the expectation? >> it is a great question. to be clear, it is actually not just drones. if you think about the technology's at issue here, you can imagine tracking with the drone coupled with tracking using a cellphone which as i know something this committee has considered recently plus tracking with a license plate scanner and all these things could be used to really provide mass surveillance all the time. in terms specifically of drones they have become smaller, cheaper, surveillance technologies can penetrate more deeply at night, with smaller

and greater cameras, recently indicated one camera called the artists, could cover multiple square miles and few detailed surveillance of an entire city. imagine that technology coupled with surveillance. it changes the way people think of as public and what a public space is. it really merits further regulation by congress. >> you mentioned the problem with weapons. our weapons ever opprobrium with drones? >> i think we need to explore the question of weapon is asian carefully. by and large the answer is no. weapons shouldn't be used because the drone is not in the same kind of danger as a police officer is. a police officer has got to defend themselves. to apprehend someone. a jerome cannot defend itself or apprehend anyone and a drone

operator may not have the same judgment or expertise when peering through a camera as a police officer does on the ground. all of that argues against weapon as asian. maybe there are exceptions for training or other purposes but by and large weapons don't belong on roads. >> you mentioned the possibility of discrimination. can use a word about how you choose which carriers are under surveillance? >> that is an outstanding question. in goes to a couple of important issues. one is having the community be involved. you should know if their surveillance the community should be able to decide if getting a drone is an appropriate tool and how it should be used. in the question of discrimination generally, we seem in monitoring video cameras that video surveillance is frequently a very boring task for and operator. it is goal, minds tend to wander, they follow a round

honestly, pretty girls and tend to follow their biases and look for a particular racial minorities they may think are more likely to commit crimes. we think it is probable that could happen with the drones. >> in terms of selecting the areas to be under surveillance? >> not just the areas under surveillance but the individuals they might choose to follow. if you had mass surveillance over a particular area they may be picking out particular individuals and deciding to follow them around to see if they were going to commit crimes. >> if you have a legal exception for surveillance, what happens when you see something you didn't have probable cause to suspect but you noticed because it was under surveillance? >> that is going to be relatively uncommon. >> the entire traffic area, traffic surveillance, that is okay and you see some drug deal

over on the side, you get to use that? >> what we would say is we hope we don't have mass surveillance like that or cameras in the sky all the time. we would assume surveillance is largely by drone, largely directed and targeted so if individual acts were already being monitored by law enforcement we expect they would likely come under existing reasonable suspicion standard if the investigation was done for example in public because we already had a court order that would say it is okay to do drone use in public get these pretty the veterans. >> get all the stuff recorded could there be a limitation on what you can do with it after you have got it? >> i think there has to be. we don't want people to be recorded all the time or feel those drones are constantly monitoring them and we want people to know they are safe but

not just in title in public to live their lives without worrying what they do will end up on youtube. >> the gentleman's time is expired. under the procedures that have announced by the chairman of the committee, full committee members who are not members of a subcommittee are entitled to sit but not entitled to ask questions unless a member yields some time to do so and under that procedure is the chair yields his time, is five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. >> appreciate you yielding and all four of you being here. i guess the crowning decision concept is the supreme court's to-expectation of privacy down

the road is going to be not expanded bed made smaller. that is what members of the courts are saying which concerns me so it seems to me congress in the area of drones needs to set the standard rather than let the courts down the road set a standard. i am from houston and our local sheriff, sheriff adrian garcia, third largest county in the country, he won't use any kind of drone's because he doesn't know what the law is going to be and doesn't want to wait for the supreme court to rule on a search, throw out a case he has arrested some bad guy and put him in jail. he is not using drones. he is waiting for somebody to get him and law enforcement agencies some direction on the use of roads. seems to be two issues. law-enforcement use and private use and what is the expectation

of privacy in those areas and should we do anything about it or just wait? let me ask you, mr. calabrese, there were comments that courts should make these decisions, fourth amendment which courts have been doing, applying what law-enforcement on the fourth amendment, should the courts be the answer for solving the issue of rhones in the fourth amendment? >> i think your legislation does a very good job creating a careful balance, something congress is particularly good at and the courts are not particularly good. when we think about how we would want to use a drone is clear that most of the uses, finding a missing person, fighting a forest fire, are not uses that particularly implicate the fourth amendment and your legislation is careful to carve those out and i think by creating clarity you all t

good purposes including commercial purposes where people don't have to worry that that drone in the sky is spying on them so you allow the growth of the industry while still protecting people's privacy in a reasonable way so i think congress absolutely has a role landed is a very strong role and one that you are well suited to perform. >> what about the a? right now the faa decides who gets a permit for drone and they make the decision and the president weighed in on that and told the faa to be sensitive to privacy concerns when giving new permits. >> i think the faa does have a role clearly in some of the things like deciding what is going to happen with information once it is collected providing notice what particular drones are being flown and how all, but congress has a central role in regulating itself, regulating

the government. congress has got to be the one to decide how to police how the fourth amendment should be interpreted because congress has a role interpreting the constitution as well, your constitutional officers so the faa can perform an expert function and congress's role has got to remain central. >> the issue of round has come up there are a lot in the industry, the drug industry and other industries saying talk about a fourth amendment, let's expand it and revisit the whole concept of the fourth amendment and not just with drones but with all new technologies. what do you think about that? >> i believe in expanding the fourth amendment. i know you do as well. the committee is doing that right now. you are not just considering drones but also considering surveillance of cellphones, the committee has had another hearing on electronic communications, privacy. you really are revisiting the entire issue and i think you are

doing it in a very intelligent and deliberative manner. this is a piece of that. >> once again, on the other technologies, some have yet to be invented. should congress set the standard perimeters on law-enforcement, civilian use, or should we just again wait for the supreme court to make those decisions? >> in the 20 first century as we have gotten new technologies we have to make sure our values come with us, that we don't lose those constitutional values as we move to new technologies. you are perfectly suited to do that. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> could i ask mr. villasenor, professor mcneal and professor

maclin, have you heard about the pull legislation 637 preserving american privacy act, and are you able to comment on it at all? please do. >> first of all, very appreciative of any attention congress is giving to this very important issue. one of the concerns i have with overly broad warrant requirements is the problems that could arise. i agree that we should not countenance government fishing expeditions using unmanned aircraft or any other technology but for examples of those was enforcement unmanned aircraft monitoring traffic intersection after an accident and on the sidewalk by the intersection a terrible insult takes place and suppose the video evidence from the unmanned aircraft is the only evidence that clearly identifies the perpetrator, it

would defy reason to say to that victim we know the perpetrator is, we are going to let the perpetrator go because we don't have a warrant and there is legislation that says we can't use it so we need to be cognizant of the potentially bad -- unintended consequences of what sounds like something which is only going to be good. >> mr. mcneal. >> mr. villasenor, one of the points i make my written testimony where i provide a few examples where the legislation, turned preserving american privacy act, in 2012, they both create a circumstance where we might be suppressing inadvertant lead discovered information so we doing search and rescue mission and public parks or something and along the way when looking for the lost hiker you come across evidence of a crime and now that evidence can't be used.

some privacy advocates want a ban on the use of secondary evidence in all circumstances and i understand the impulse. the idea is if you say you're using it for search and rescue purposes a new use the evidence for crime collection purposes it presents the circumstance where we might have general surveillance we are concerned with. there has to be some way in the legislation we craft an exception for that. >> thank you, professor maclin. >> i am not a position to comment. i wouldn't want to express an opinion. >> of course. let me turn now to the very disturbing consideration of this general subject. this is a prime example of technology overtaking established law and i think we

are going to have to go beyond the fourth amendment. there is going to have to be a body of statutes that go into some of this detail. it is not all about privacy but privacy is always a continuing exception. do any of you want to recommend to this subcommittee which might be the ones that take on this responsibility, any courses of action the we might take to examine all of this has been remarked? this goes beyond drones' because there could be new technology coming out to further complicate it. >> you hit the nail on the head when you say this goes beyond drones. in new york city, a helicopter

that caught 23 officers killed on 9/11, it has a camera that can observe activity two miles away, see the detail on people's faces, read their name tags if they had a name tag on their shirt from two miles away. this is an drone specific thing. it is and advancement of technology. the approach if congress wanted to legislate would be to look at the issue of surveillance, define what surveillance is. i put some definitions in written testimony and create some lines based on the duration of surveillance that would allow officers at their own discretion to observe individuals from any platform for period of time, two hours in a seven day period and once we get to the end of that seven day period they need reasonable suspicion to continue surveillance for 48 our period of time and anything logger than that might require a warrant. the times i have thrown out are just my best guess at privacy

protection. might put it lower at 20 minutes and some might put it higher but we are treating all technology the same. camera trained on someone's home persistently day after day will be treated the same as if it is a camera on a jerome or someone standing on a rooftop using a camera. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr friends. >> i'm on the armed services committee, where we quite often have to struggle with the issues of unmanned aerial vehicles because it allows us to pilot from the ground in many circumstances. this is also true of missile technology, guided missiles and piloted on the ground aerial vehicles. this technology is beginning to

merge and presents serious challenges. never send a man to do a missile's job but the reality is the technology becoming more and more difficult raises constitutional issues that the previous gentleman astutely articulated. my first question is how to apply the time-honored constitutional principles according to regional intent in a way that is reasonable and appropriate, so let me give this example and asked mr. maclin if he will respond. the city of boston in toward obviously a terrible terrorist attack, the street cameras recording the scene from every angle were key to law-enforcement in the hunt for the terrorists. the police used for thermal images from helicopters to locate the armed suspect as he hid from the police.

any of these images could have been derived from unmanned aircraft. constitutionally, mr. maclin, it is not a trick question but mr. conyers's point was very spot on. does it matter to you constitutionally whether those images in that particular case came from a street camera or and unmanned aerial surveillance? >> constitutionally speaking no. i don't think it matters. what matters is who is responsible for those cameras. i may be mistaken but i believe one of the cameras was from board and taylor but let's assume they were put out bylord and taylor but let's assume they were put out by the city of boston. it doesn't matter. >> let me direct a question to

you stated in your testimony that the uas would be acceptable to you for reasonable non law enforcement purposes by non law-enforcement agencies for privacy would not be substantially affected where surveillance will not be used for secondary law-enforcement purposes and to the previous gentleman, mr. maclin's comment, it is your position that the fourth amendment applies only to law-enforcement agencies for law-enforcement purposes? >> to the government generally. as opposed -- the fourth amendment applies to government generally. >> for reasonable non law-enforcement purposes it would no longer apply. >> i wouldn't say the fourth amendment does not apply. i would say it will apply no matter what i say. >> i am reading what you said.

>> what we believe the biggest danger is is law-enforcement will use drones in an invasive manner, but we still want to create the ability of government to use drone xenon invasive matter. of firefighters a government agent they will still use a drone to investigate fire. we don't want to keep that happening. whether the fourth amendment applies which it does, it is not a search for law enforcement purposes. >> it seems pretty challenging, if one tries to play the fourth amendment to non law enforcement agency different from law enforcement agencies when the defect is the same. it is one of the issues we are grappling with for a long time. would anyone else on the panel like to address either of those questions? >> i want to direct you to page

6 of my testimony and fred this needle which is, the fourth amendment issue, what we need to focus on is the legislation, the policy concern brought requires definition of what a search is. might go beyond the fourth amendment. the big thing we have been banding about is the distinction between a general surge over a town versus the targeted search over a particular individual and we want to address those different types of searches in different ways because new york city your subject to a general search at all points and that is different. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlewoman from california. >> i wanted to ask some questions of the panel about what you believe laws and restrictions should be placed on drone use by private citizens to conduct aerial surveillance. it is my understanding as a private citizen wants to use the

drone they have to get faa approval but beyond that i wanted to know if you had suggestions. >> i can partially try to respond. currently commercial use in the united states is not yet permitted or the faa a is in the process under the act a innovation reauthorization act of 2012, drafting those regulations put the question -- >> still to come. >> according to the schedule, by late 2015 those regulations will be complete. it is an eminently reasonable question. there is a very simplistic, and law as well as in most states statutes both civil and criminal related to invasion of privacy

and those statutes are usually tied to the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. if a private friday that it is party uses unmanned aircraft it is actionable under multiple grounds and i am confident there are existing protections and also this is a good reason to look at those statutes to make sure things like harassment and stopping statutes also cover you miss use of aircraft. >> in my area there is a concern over the paparrazzi which has gone to some extreme lengths to invade people's privacy. >> i won't defend the privacy invasions the paparrazzi commit. i think we all know that is not what technology problem, that is the paparrazzi problem. >> i would just say private use does raise serious first amendment concerns. we think there's a lot of

existing law around the invasions of privacy in the state level and to some extent that the federal level, it is potential invasion of privacy under current law, it is peeping tom was, trespass laws and california specific paparrazzi laws so unlike the fourth amendment government contact where we spend a lot of time talking where it is largely unregulated and the committee needs to focus, here there's a fair amount of existing law and it may be appropriate to see how that plays out before we do a lot of legislating in the private use area. >> anyone else? when i learn about the drone is being so small like the size of a bird or whatever, how do you see in the future is that being regulated? what is to stop an individual from getting that without a

approval? >> there's already a hobbyist exception for unmanned aircraft, of model aircraft as defined in the legislation. frankly it is a very important to provide exceptions for hobbyists so that a parent who goes and flies a model aircraft that a flying field with his or her child doesn't need to get faa approval. there is going to be some flexibility in terms of acquiring platforms but again it is the use where we draw the line. the intent of these platforms might be used in invasive for unlawful manner, that is where we addressed the behavior. >> thank you. yield back my time. >> the gentleman from utah. >> thank you. i thank the panel for being here, it is an important topic because the rapid expansion of technology and technology as long as it is used in the right and proper way, let me talk a little bit about the jones case,

apologize i walked in a little late. i was interested by justice sonia sotomayor's opinion on this. 9-0 ruling is pretty conclusive but it does beg the question of what other areas should is the applicable to? from your perspective and experience, our current justice department and implementation by the fbi and others, have they taken this jones case and implemented the way you see it should be implemented? are they missing something here? what should the justice department and the federal government be doing with that jones case? start with mr. calabrese if we could. >> the jones case deals with location tracking and the acl a you's view is the government has been deficient in applying a jones, no matter how you read

it, systematic tracking of individuals over time implicates the fourth amendment and is a search. given that rationale we believe all manner of fracking currently undertaken by the government whether that is cellphone fracking goerge tracking of but gps device by a car implicates the fourth amendment and should be done with a warrant. it is a very interesting question whether the same rationale should be expanded to drones. clearly drone could be used to track an individual for long duration in a very detailed manner. perhaps u.s. be jones will regulate how drone their use as well. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i would say this about jones. the story on jones and the scope of jones is underwritten. certainly justice sonia sotomayor and justice olio's opinion talk about electronic monitoring. the opinion is careful not to

rely on the catch test and not to rely on any sort of electronic concerns about all of from the monitoring. his opinion was fully about the physical intrusion and the purpose of the governmental conduct and if you read the most recent ruling from the court in this area of florida versus jargon with justice scalia writing the majority opinion you will see the focus of justice philly's concern on the physical intrusion in that case. with respect to jones -- >> what is your opinion? seems to be shortsighted to think just the physical intrusion -- >> i agree. my personal opinion is the concern with the monitoring of more important because we are already at a time where government doesn't need a physical intrusion. >> you can triangulating electronically without actually physically attacking something. that is my concern. as we look at this, i have the

geo location bill done with in a bipartisan way, you have been very supportive about this. i don't think it is merely the physical intrusion of attaching that gps device, technology over the course of time. let me get to the and two gentlemen's opinion. one thing we need to look at is air space. if you have private property and they have something very small land they have something large, a 5 parcel of land, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy that isn't just limited by walking down the street and you put up a fence, the air space is something in general we should look at but if you talk to that, i want to leave time for the other person as well. >> what you articulate it has reasonable expectation of privacy you expect that your constituents expect is something that is broader than the supreme court has articulated. going back to the oliver case

and other surveillance cases, what we knowingly exposed to the public is not a matter of fourth amendment concern and if you want to protect the airspace over someone's yard it will require legislation because the court doesn't seem prepared to identify that yet. >> time is almost up. >> i read jones more optimistically than many of you to prohibiting long term extended surveillance. majority of the justices, justice alito was joined by three justices and justice sonia sotomayor agreed with the statement that long-term tracking itself even without the actual trespass attaching the device it was reasonable, violated reasonable expectation of privacy and even justice scalia said it may be unconstitutional. i am quite encouraged that the supreme court -- >> that is the right direction. >> the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from the louisiana mr.

richmond. >> thank you, mr. maclin, let me start with you because a lot of conversations and what goes on depends on reasonable expectation of privacy as we discussed another bill. at what point do you think it will ever get to the point that we say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is period? the more things evolve the more i think i don't have any expectation of privacy. at some point will someone say your expectation of privacy is unreasonable? >> i agree with you and the committee and congress in general can use their powers under section 5, the fourteenth amendment, to enforce the fourth amendment and say yes, reasonable expectation of privacy includes the following. >> mr. calabrese, you talked about the fact that web tort laws and government electors, as i watched the news this morning there was an incident in new york where a guy took pictures

of people in an adjacent building, didn't capture their face but caught a very intimate moments at those pictures are in a gallery, subjects of them were very upset and the lawyers that talked about it said there is no recourse for them. it is that sort of thing that concerns me in terms of if we get to drone does how do we reconcile that? >> they are very difficult questions but very difficult questions both because they are invasions and the first amendment. beating from laws would deal with the drone against someone's window, across the building, with a powerful camera, it is a harder question. the first amendment protect our right to gather information for

really important reasons, regulating how government operates, giving people the ability to talk about what is going on in their lives, share information, the obvious need to to protect the press. we have seen that this week. we are going to have to balance those. we do think there is a lot of law in this area so we have to tread carefully in regard to the first amendment and there are more existing protocols and controls around first amendment related activity for private use than there are for the first amendment facing government. >> we talked a little bit about the drones, the fact that they have the capability of license plate readers but my police chief was excited about the fact that he put license plate readers on every stoplight. at one point do you think police now would need some

authorization to record and store the data from license plate readers, spring burglaries, that they go back and see if there's any, are that went through red lights close to any of those homes? can they store that information? >> there is a reason for license plate readers. >> of reason to have a license plate readers at the end of the shift. quince the purpose you gathered for is no longer operative, and if we don't do that, we are going to live in a society where we have not surveillance. we live in a world of records now. everything we do generate a record. our entire lives are out there -- >> that is what i was worried

about. >> i fully in am sympathetic to these concerns, as mr. calabrese said all these records were destroyed at an end the shift, missing persons report that wasn't reported for 48 hours after it happened, and intentionally destroyed information that might have led us to that more quickly. these are hard questions. >> i see my time is expired. >> the gentleman from south carolina. >> gentlemen, justice alito said new technology may provide increased security at the expense of privacy, many people may find the trade off worthwhile. how will we know whether people

find the trade-off worthwhile and who gets to make that decision? >> can i comment on that? that is a catchy statement. the problem is when an individual -- >> it is not -- >> i understand that. my concern with that statement is because society or members of society would be willing to make that trade off, the individual will be the one who suffers and i think that is the job, i assume that is why the committee is holding this hearing to get a view and i agree with congressman richmond that this body should make a determination of that because if it is just a matter of what society would prefer or be willing to make, individuals are going to be the ones who suffer. >> if i remember correctly, the

bill of rights sets the minimum and it states for this entity perhaps wanted to have a more arduous view of one of the amendments like the fourth amendment we could do so. >> i would just caution because the jurisprudence under the city of bernie versus floor as, it does not lend itself to congress going beyond what the supreme court has done. that said -- >> i thought the constitution allowed in some instances to set jurisdiction of the courts. >> allotted jurisdiction under section 5, the court has been somewhat restrictive, the city of bernie is the main case and there have been recent presidents since then and we will be interested to see what they do with the shelby county case but the court invalidated

several congressional statutes where congress has imposed on states, restrictions the court found constitutional. >> how does the expenditure of manpower or womanpower impact a fourth amendment analysis? i can see an analysis, line officers in surveillance, that is one analysis, a different analysis than having a computer do it. am i dreaming up the investiture of resources and jason, my friend, love him to death, gps tracking and part of the analysis when you have a person doing it you are investing time and resources, than just having some device do it. how does that play into it? >> i know of no supreme court case in which the court said how much resources invested make any

difference in the fourth amendment. >> i think there is. you guys were the experts. the gentleman shaking his head to agree with you and not me but you go ahead. >> i agree with you, congressman. the appropriate place for us to calibrate the expectations is the legislature rather than letting judges right things up. and what constituents expect with regard to privacy, but to control texas surveillance, gps or geo location data congress can pass legislation, require a warrant before allowing it to be a pain for a subpoena, that is completely appropriate. >> will technology impact whether a search is considered reasonable? >> to answer that, supreme court ruled the government uses agents

to literally track, follow somebody around, but that is not the fourth amendment where the supreme court is on record leaving open the question the same tracking with technology. and as i mentioned a moment ago justice alito -- >> do you agree, i am almost out of crime, technology impact our reasonable expectation of privacy that it is a scale that changes from generation to generation? >> to some extent we are more comfortable with photography than the late 1800'ss when it became possible to capture and irrefutably accurate image of somebody at will and it doesn't mean we have privacy. >> congressman does affect the fourth amendment. >> i am out of time.

>> that would like to ask about the issue of storage of data and its implications for privacy. the local police departments are trying to obtain permits from the faa to use drones for law enforcement purposes and there is potential that a large amount of data in store for a long period of time. and pose a threat to american privacy, types of data these drones, and those law-enforcement agencies who acquired drones have data minimization policies in place. >> those are incredibly good questions that don't have clear answers at this point. we try to sketch a few

parameters, and widespread corruption, hd camera level video can create huge privacy implications. it really changes public space. and powerful new technologies, detailed video. we use it to zoom in particular things, with data attention policies those of best practices, every police department should limit the amount of collection fored purposes. and whether that is happening now, on a local level or predicted a data protection we think it is something the faa requires for local law enforcement. >> there is some data minimization policy in place.

what kind of policy in terms of considering civilian drone usage? >> the other reasons for correction you put a drone of 4 particular reason and the person you looking into, the case is over and no longer need to discard the data. if you don't do any mass surveillance you won't have to worry about keeping data for longer periods of time. >> and with the electronic communication, and other technologies to protect individual privacy. >> powerful frameworks in place now, the privacy act in itself has all the principles we believe would apply here, perhaps the privacy exceptions

and also a powerful framework and strong protections listening to people's communication. what we can learn to articulate, some of the things we believe should be in any bill, correction only, not converting to other purposes, discarding when it is done, notifying people being collected and giving them an put into that. >> the positive benefits of drones, representative from southern california we face many dangerous and costly wildfires each year and we can benefit those fires. the station fire in the national force in my district killed two firefighters and burn 160,000 acres and is the largest

wildfire in the modern history of our county. the modernization act helping to accelerate the production of firefighting prevention drones, to have these tools in the near future, are there any barriers that warned congressional review? >> the faa is very well aware of the importance of the applications of firefighting and the f a a is not involved in production of those aircraft but is working diligently and hard on the regulations that are enabling the use of such fire-fighting that nobody in this room finds objectionable in the least so that is moving apace quite well. >> thank you. and i yield the balance of my time to sheila jackson lee. >> the chairwoman is recognized for 15 seconds. >> mr. calabrese, a simple question. what is the opportunity for racial profiling and how dangerous is that with the utilization of drones?

>> we certainly see racial profiling in use, it is logical to believe it would be applied here. >> the gentlewoman's time is expired. the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being here. i am curious, the line of questioning, to give an example, there is that friend in my town who said his incredible new camera with incredible new lens sky word and took pictures of a shuttle going over and later saw on the news that it had broken up and got that to the paper and it was the most -- it was a photograph that has been on more front pages of publications than any other. on the other hand if he took that same camera and pointed it

in someone's window for a long distance than you would get an issue so obviously technology makes a difference and it seems we do get into some intent issues but i am curious, mr. calabrese, you said there is a lot of law in this area and i wasn't sure which area you were talking about but i am curious, if congress went about setting what we believed, and i believe there's a lot of room for agreement on both sides. i appreciate mr. richmond's questions and i think we agree on a great deal in this area. if we came to agreement on what we in congress believe was an appropriate, reasonable expectation of privacy, are you guys aware of a law that would create a problem for us setting such an expectation, reabl

expectation of privacy? >> i don't believe so. you have a very powerful piece of legislation in front of you, and that is a very good beginning on setting the parameters for how drones should be used. that is a great place to answer your question, in terms of existing law was largely talking about private use and stuff like that. >> was anybody aware of laws that would be adverse to us trying to set a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> i am not aware of that. the courts have had decades to try to define -- >> i understand. it is difficult. >> you might be better served by focusing on the government conduct that you want to control, defining terms like search and public place and what

not and focusing your legislation there rather -- what is reasonable expectation of privacy in new york city is different from somewhere else. >> and a lot of paparrazzi in texas, we don't have that much paparrazzi but her concern is my concern, not just public government entities, but if you have but noisy neighbor that has that telescope and points to your backyard or inside your house instead of skyward, there ought to be some point that you can expect privacy, right? >> on the conduct that we would want to control, it would be either the collection of that information via private party or subsequent use of that information, and so sometimes you walk down the street at night in georgetown and people leave their blinds open a new can see houses and what not,

that is not something -- they might feel their privacy is violated but not something -- >> exactly. >> snapping photoss and using them the use of that information is what we want to control. >> there is one example of this in the mid 70s in united states versus miller, a supreme court said we don't have reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to banking records. congress passed legislation in which effectively reversed that ruling, and gave individuals -- >> good point. my time is running out. is anyone aware of any laws that would prohibit you shooting down a drone in an area in which you were allowed to shoot? this question came up for somebody. if it is over your air space for your home and it is a private, not a government drone i think it would be of very bad idea. i am just asking if there are any loss. i have a guy from georgia say we

need 50 rounds because that is how many takes to take down a drone. if you end up hurting someone else could be charged with -- >> specifically can you shootdown a drone over your property? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i appreciate that since you normally allow people to answer questions that were already asked. ..