​Has constitutional doctrine kept pace with
new surveillance technology?

Sign my Petition for Privacy Rights in Oregon 

https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-the-oregon-legislative-oregon-residential-privacy-and-anti-surveillance/dashboard/home?source_location=user_profile_started

 

In the age of Flock cameras and massive surveillance, my neighbor, Tiffany Berg, an ex-prison guard and local realtor have a camera 24 feet high on her garage that does not capture her property, but most of my property, including my working shed and enclosed outdoor patio around the clock. I cannot block this camera. She has posted videos of me, taken without my knowledge while I was on my own land on TikTok with 1,500,000 views of defamation.

 

When I discovered her TikTok posts, I installed two cameras at only six feet that monitor a small section of her driveway, so I know when she is videotaping me, which she has blocked

 

The Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty interest to persistent, targeted private surveillance of residential property by neighbors, demands such protection, and the Ninth Amendment, the right to be free from continuous, targeted surveillance should be extended.

​

I argue that ORS 837 governing drones being flown over a neighbor's property to harass, which the Berg's have done, also governs stationary cameras because the intent is the same, which is to make it unlawful to videotape your neighbor's property to harass. Tiffany Berg has done that with 1,500,000 views of defamation. 

 

Inexpensive high-resolution cameras, elevated mounting positions, unlimited digital storage, facial recognition, and instantaneous global distribution via social media has produced surveillance that did not exist when privacy doctrines were developed.

​

Here are cameras that surveilles me 24/7.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​​

 When I put up garbage bags on my fence to block her from locking through my fence, I had a drone flown close to my head while I was weed whacking on my own land - minding my own business.​​​​​​​​​​​