EFF’s Hanni Fakhoury wrote “the court was convinced with our arguments that the invasiveness of constant video surveillance pointed continuously at one of the most sensitive and private places—the front of a person’s home—triggers constitutional protection.”

“Relying on cases decided almost 30 years ago, the government argued that it’s unreasonable for people to expect privacy in an area visible to the public. But as we explained in our amicus brief, no one expects their house to be placed under invasive 24/7 video surveillance for a month,” he added. “And as the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Riley v. California, the ability for technology to reveal a ‘broad array of private information’ means courts must be particularly vigilant in protecting constitutional rights in the 21st Century.”

Tuesday, December 16, 2014
All Gov

Related Issues