In the past several years, a polarizing new technology has arisen - a constant aerial

surveillance system that’s able to track the movements of vehicles and individuals over dozens of
square miles and countless hours. The benefits aren’t hard to see: in multiple violent crimes, its
implementation allowed vehicles to be tracked from the point of a crime to safe houses, parking
lots, homes, or even cartel headquarters, where criminals are then quickly apprehended.

The recent adoption of this technology in Baltimore and its possibility to spread to cities
such as Corning brings to light the possibilities of abuse inherently present in this technology.
The 4​th Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and
seizures; warrants must be issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” By that
reasoning, in the case of aerial surveillance, the people to be searched is everyone in Baltimore;
the places to be looked at is every place in Baltimore and oaths to be obtained ahead of time are
blanket.

The danger of infringing privacy rights doesn’t end with law enforcement: utilizing
increasingly adept cameras with higher resolutions, this umbrella aerial surveillance could be
used by private interests for their own commercial gain. Furthermore, the aerial surveillance
systems already in place rely on a private contractor, Persistent Surveillance Systems.

In previous instances of aerial surveillance, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that aerial
surveillance in public airspace by the naked eye and readily available commercial cameras does
not constitute a “search” under the 4​th amendment. Yet these deal with isolated surveillance cases
far from a constant, city-wide surveillance operation. In effect, the Court recognizes the
imposing potential of surveillance technology not available to the general public. In two separate
cases, the Court acknowledged the risk posed by some technologies - thermal imaging cameras
able to see inside homes, and constant, 24-hour GPS tracking systems attached to suspects’ cars.

As a society, we must decide on how to deal with a new technology that grants
unprecedented power in solving crimes, while in parallel poses an existential risk to our privacy.
I believe we must follow in the Supreme Court’s footsteps that this nature of surveillance - far
removed from use by the average citizen - must be regulated as such and treated as a search
under the 4​th Amendment. Private parties should not be granted permission to this caliber of
surveillance, starting with PSS. In order to access the recorded surveillance, police must obtain a
warrant for observing a specific crime and vehicles associated with the crime, substantiated with
probable cause. Any evidence of additional activity, crimes or otherwise, is null under that
warrant. This is society’s ​Choose Your Own Adventure - we can opt for a future filled with
blatant rights violations from the sky - or a relationship with surveillance that benefits both the
state and the individual.

In the words of former president Barack Obama: “Technology is remaking what is

possible for individuals, and for institutions, and for the international order. There are fewer and
fewer technical constraints on what we ​can do, that places a special obligation on us to ask
questions about what we ​should​ do.”