| |
| ▲ | hilariously 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded around the beach while disrobed, some of them bringing their children with them. People sailed by and photographed many of the nudists, and put their images online. Many alleged that must be a violation of some privacy law, but no, the law in Washington (and most, perhaps all, of the US) is quite clear: if you're in public, you can be filmed and photographed. If you don't want to be filmed nude, don't go walking around naked in public. Regardless, back to the topic at hand, the fact that Flock cameras a in public spaces does in fact mean that there's no requirement to get a warrant to use them. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. This is false. While there is no strongly established precedent yet, there are certainly serious and plausible legal arguments being made that unlimited collection and collation/cross-referencing/etc. of "public" information can under certain circumstances constitute a search. It will most certainly not "escape scrutiny moving forward". e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_theory_of_the_Fourth_Am... | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The legality of automated license plate readers has gone all the way up to the United States Court of Appeals. That's the second highest court in the country, superseded only by the Supreme Court. This is as strong as precedent gets, short of a SCOTUS decision. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't sound like escaping scrutiny to me! Sounds like it's getting pretty thoroughly scrutinized, in fact. > This is as stromg (sic) as precedent gets, short of a SCOTUS decision. Another egregious misrepresentation. The courts are obviously making their rulings as narrow as possible because they know the "mosaic theory" style arguments have some merit. Look at US vs. Yang, for example, in which the court dodged the issue completely with some argument about rental car contract periods. And Schmidt v. Norfolk, which IIUC directly challenges Flock ALPRs on 4A grounds, is pending. Lots and lots of scrutiny. Your claim that the conclusion is foregone here is obviously absurd. Even when/if it gets to SCOTUS I expect they'll write as narrow an opinion as they can get away with, in whatever direction it falls. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jollyllama 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So what's the logical conclusion, that there will be a company with a drone following every individual in a public space at all times and that the government will pay for the data? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The logical conclusion is that the US brings itself in line with the rest of the developed world, and realizes video cameras are useful for solving crime. Flying drones are not required, stationary cameras are more than enough outside of specific scenarios like active pursuit. | |
| ▲ | b40d-48b2-979e 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Considering how desperately that user is responding to every comment on this post, it seems they have a vested interest in playing blind for Flock, which makes me think they are paid by Flock. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lol, I should be getting paid. But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people. | | |
| ▲ | filup 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Manual D, the flock system is still very new. Why are you confident a private companies monetization of public whereabouts will stay legal? There hasent really been any precedent set on this. And the system is wildly unpopular In the public eye? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | In case you didn't read it, the 9th circuit upheld the use of Flock cameras. The precedence is as high as it gets, short of a supreme Court decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636421 You're being exposed to a very specific group of people when you read Hacker News or Reddit. Plenty of people are happy to have Flock cameras in their neighborhood on account of the improved ability to investigate crime. |
| |
| ▲ | normalaccess 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And this is how freedom dies, not by the letter of the law, but by the spirit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
