"Is it legal for the government to setup surveillance cameras on someone's land, to monitor their land?"
That is about to be found out in court.
"Although the case is proceeding in state court under the authority of the Tennessee Constitution, the central claims point to a nationwide problem. Starting about 100 years ago.."
It will also likely soon become moot as drones get cheaper and cheaper, and you don't own the sky over your land. Here's a company, Brinc, building border security drones which the promo video also says can also easily be used for prisons, data centers and just about anything else.
But if a private person may not fly over private property of other people, than that rule should apply for government personal, too - unless a warrant, or "special rules". And they can be changed by the people.
There are almost allways loopholes with every regulation. It is about it working most of the time.
I mean we have satellite spying since quite a while anyway and with more cheap satelites that comes bigger.
It is still a big difference, if some agency manages to get pictures of some property sometimes - by flying over with a special drone or satelite - then it is for them to secretly install cameras on peoples land. Cameras can be always on surveilling and are cheap once installed. A drone needs operating, has a limited operating time and can be spotted.
Drawing these fine lines is exactly what regulation is for. You can have air travel without having random people flying over and photographing your kids' backyard water fight party.
That is about to be found out in court.
"Although the case is proceeding in state court under the authority of the Tennessee Constitution, the central claims point to a nationwide problem. Starting about 100 years ago.."
But the issue behind, is a more complicated one.