| ▲ | fusslo 9 hours ago | |
I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock. From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public. Therefore any time you go in public you cannot expect NOT to be tracked, photographed, and entered into a database (which may now outlive us). I think the argument comes from the 1st amendment. Weaponizing the Bill of Rights (BoR) for the government against the people does not seem to align with my understanding of why the Bill of Rights was cemented into our constitution in the first place. I wonder what Adams or Madison would make of it. I wonder if Benjamin Franklin would be appalled. I wonder if they'd consider every license plate reading a violation of the 4th amendment. | ||
| ▲ | godelski 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
I think maybe the worst part is that the more we buy into this belief the more self fulfilling it becomes (see third link). But I don't expect anyone to believe me so here's several links. And I'd encourage people to push back against this misnomer. In the most obvious of cases I hope we all expect to have privacy in a public restroom. But remember that this extends beyond that. And remember that privacy is not binary. It's not a thing you have complete privacy or none (public restrooms again being an obvious example). So that level of privacy that we expect is ultimately decided by us. By acting as if it is binary only enables those who wish to take those rights from us. They want you to be nihilistic https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/you-really-do-have-som... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priv... https://legalclarity.org/is-there-an-expectation-of-privacy-... | ||
| ▲ | autoexec 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
> I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock. I suspect they'd make a distinction between private individuals engaging in first amendment protected activity like public photography and corporations or the state doing the same in order to violate people's 4th amendment rights. We certainly don't have to allow for both cases. | ||
| ▲ | pornel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
The problem is that these laws were written before automated mass surveillance was feasible. | ||
| ▲ | chzblck 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
they prob be upset about the 13th 15th and 19th amendments too | ||