If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place, does this mean that products like Flock which indiscriminately violate your privacy would now require a warrant for law enforcement to access (currently they do not)?

▲

derektank 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Where does the ruling discuss public places? The article quotes the ruling as saying, “An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location.” I don’t think a ruling about private records held by a private entity like google or a phone company naturally extends to surveillance of public places.

▲

seplox 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don’t think a ruling about private records held by a private entity like google or a phone company naturally extends to surveillance of public places.

Even when the surveillance is being conducted by a private entity? A private entity that's selling access to its private records of the comings and goings of a sizeable chunk of the population to police who are buying specifically because it would be a 4th Amendment violation for them to collect the data themselves?

If it's reasonable for we consumers, who know that cell networks and phone makers are collecting our data, to expect privacy, then it's reasonable to extend that same expectation to operators of ALPR and related techs. There's no opt-out, after all. We can't reject the terms of service.

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent [-]

I suspect the argument against that would be that you contract with the cell service provider and so have a colorable interest as a party to said contract. In contrast you have no such contractual relationship with Flock, and if your government contracted with them on your behalf your remedy is to vote harder.

	▲	seplox 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		According to the ruling, the exposure of your location history is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage—which, just as Carpenter noted, is a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life." If we can't step out of our houses or drive to the doctor without that fact getting placed into a searchable database, then I'd argue that it qualifies as a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."

▲

petcat 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place

I don't think it's reasonable to have privacy in a public place. All other arguments follow from there.

What do you think should be "private" when you step outside your home?

▲

tsimionescu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Would you be happy with a public "petcat tracker" site that published your personal location and image 24/7 whenever you are out in public, from data collected from Flock and other similar products? If you think that would cross a line, you do have some expectation of privacy even in a public place.

	▲	Terr_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Right: This kind of law is supposed to conform to the common expectation, not dictate it! We all might expect someone could take a photo of us walking down the sidewalk, but that's not the same as "expecting" to be followed by a virtual (or even literal) drone-swarm that constantly catalogues our every movement cross-referenced to potential interactions with everyone else.

▲

fusslo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't think it's reasonable to have privacy in a public place. All other arguments follow from there.

- United states v Jones

- Carpenter v United States

- florida v jardines

- kyllo v united states

All affirm some level of expectation of privacy in public.

ALPR's, facial recognition, drone surveillance are going to get challenged at some point. GORSUCH in this opinion pontificated on Katz v United States. Highly recommend reading his opinion

▲

anigbrowl 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do. It's not the legal norm in the US, but in many countries you are still considered to have a right of privacy when you are outside your home. In Japan, for example, you can be sued for publishing photographs or video of street scenes without either securing permission or redacting the faces of passers-by.

▲

TheJoeMan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I run into someone at the grocery store, I can remember "oh I saw them yesterday" if the Police interview me. If I start writing down/logging every time I saw that person at the grocery store and plotting it out, I would consider that "crossing the line".

A Flock camera that receives BOLO's for known-criminals and immediately flags captures in real-time is different than tracking every person going everywhere with a history.

▲

thenewnewguy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What if the grocery store has a security camera pointed at the door that records 24/7? Should they not be allowed to do that?

▲

JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think they should be allowed to point it at places inside their store, with prominent disclosure to people entering.

I don't think they should be allowed to point it at the public sidewalk.

▲

dylan604 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So what if they mount inside pointing outside?

▲

JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Was "I don't think they should be allowed to" ambiguous?

▲

dylan604 an hour ago | parent [-]

maybe I wasn't specific enough. If I place a camera in my place so that it can see who is coming/going that also just happens to capture what's outside the window then that's just how it's going to be. If you don't like it, you can pound sand. You are not going to tell me how I can/can't place cameras inside my place.

▲

JoshTriplett an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Many jurisdictions already have laws about where you can point cameras "in your own place", including when they point out of your place. For instance, you are already not allowed to point a camera out your window at someone else's home, or into their backyard. You also can't legally record audio in most places. We should have more such restrictions on surveillance as the pervasive use of surveillance has become more of a threat.

▲

anigbrowl 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Baitposting followed by rudeness and aggression makes for a poor discussion.

	▲	dylan604 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It wasn't bait posting at all. It was a question for critical thinking. The rude was started with the response to that question. If you think you can tell me what I can do in my own place, you'll get a rude response as well. Where do you get off telling me what I can/cannot do in my private place?

▲

42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

sixothree 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Try walking around a grocery store with your phone and take a picture of every person you pass. See how they react.

That's the expectation people have for privacy.

▲

sixothree 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're suggesting people can look through your briefcase, purse, backpack without a warrant in a public place.

> What do you think should be "private" when you step outside your home?

I believe my papers and effects should NOT be subject to unreasonable searches.

▲

soulofmischief 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would like to visit the park without several large cameras staring me down at every junction now.

I would like to go to various establishments, or maybe even political meetups, without being profiled by insurance agents and law enforcement officers. Especially now that it seems simply attending a political meeting could land me decades in prison.

I would, as the US Supreme Court just reaffirmed is my right, not like to have my location continuously tracked immediately upon leaving my home via such a camera network. Otherwise this entire ruling is just subverted by adding a few extra steps.