Trying to understand the position here.

This would be excluding gag orders correct?

And regular orders currently notify the service provider, but they don't necessarily notify the target, they just don't have a prohibition on the service provider notifying the target.

Finally, recordings of public areas actually aren't be impacted by warrants at all, right? But what you are saying is not just that LEA would need warrants to look at public recordings from a willingly cooperating camera owner, and that the warrants can't be gag orders (unless specified), but that the targets must be notified, even if the subject under search were someone else, the fact that I'm included in a recording would compel the LEA to notify me?

And how exactly would I be notified? Wouldn't that necessitate even more privacy invading features like facial recognition and a facial to contact information technology? Not an uncommon paradox.

Again, just want to understand the position, my position might leak as the question being leading, but I can't help it.

▲

jedberg 2 days ago | parent [-]

> This would be excluding gag orders correct?

Much like you can't gag a search warrant on a home, you wouldn't be able to gag these orders either.

> And regular orders currently notify the service provider, but they don't necessarily notify the target, they just don't have a prohibition on the service provider notifying the target.

True, but my proposal would require that they notify you.

> Finally, recordings of public areas actually aren't be impacted by warrants at all, right?

No, but I'm saying this should apply to any time a 3rd party releases information to anyone, including law enforcement. In this case the Flock cameras feed into a private database. They should disclose when someone looks something up.

> And how exactly would I be notified?

Presumably if they can identify you then there would be a way to notify you. But those details could be left to the author of the bill.

My main point is that your data, when housed with a 3rd party, should be considered an extension of your home and offer the same guarentees and protections as the items actually in your home.

	▲	TZubiri 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You can kind of circumvent that law by keeping the recordings in house. What we have in argentina is an Habeas Data law, if someone has data about you, you can ask for it, (or ask it be amended or deleted. Pretty simple right? The home bit is no go though. Maybe an extension of the self? Too flimsy though, there's enough strong of a case treating it as what it is, an image, a visual representation of a person. A home is a specific of a concept that means something else