​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.

 

Can you imagine living next to an ex-prison guard who surveilles you 24/7 with a pattern of posting videos of you taken while on your own property on social media to defame you? Here is a picture from her camera installed on her garage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

 

 

I cannot block this camera. When I discovered her TikTok posts, I installed two cameras at six feet that monitor a small section of her driveway, so I know when she is videotaping me, which is blocked

 

The Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty interest and the Ninth Amendment, the right to be free from continuous, targeted surveillance should be extended.

​

I argue that ORS 837 governing drones also should be applied to stationary cameras because the intent is the same, which is to make it unlawful to videotape your neighbor's property to harass or annoy.

​

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 is another camera to monitor my garden activites.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​​

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