it's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.

▲

Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.

▲

filup 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant.

I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?

	▲	Manuel_D 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.