| |
| ▲ | fhdkweig a day ago | parent | next [-] | | State or federal constitution? | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them. | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm pretty sure that surveillance is not mentioned in the US Constitution. They didn't really have a concept of surveillance. Can you quote the line? | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Here is the foundational line: > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It clearly says: The right of the people to to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches shall not be violated. | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig a day ago | parent [-] | | Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that. | | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy? | | |
| ▲ | cwmoore a day ago | parent [-] | | Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney. | | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I certainly have no agreement with the Texas police or any government through which I could have waived any rights. | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says. | | |
| ▲ | cwmoore 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | High certainty statement, where did you get that from? | |
| ▲ | rationalist a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial. | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes. People can waive a trial altogether, even a trial by judge. It has to be done in front of a judge, and is limited to that trial for that person. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uhh FalcoNet doesn't photograph cars. It snoops telecom traffic. And no, SCOTUS has certainly not found that the government is allowed to just arbitrarily snoop telecom traffic. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Under the 4th amendment which has been incorperated against the states in the 1960s. |
| |
| ▲ | alwa a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe so, but four physical trucks, interpreting physical radio waves in their immediate vicinity, allocated across the whole state of Texas… that’s “targeted,” not “mass.” | | |
| ▲ | CWuestefeld a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding the definition of "targeted". It has nothing to do with the total capacity of the system, it's about the ability differentiate a specific target from everything else. The design of these systems is the opposite of that: they're intended to intercept everything within their reach. The fact that with only four devices, their reach isn't (yet) so great has no bearing. | | |
| ▲ | alwa a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s the “within their reach” that constitutes the targeting, it seems to me. Maybe “particularized scrutiny” is a better word? Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time, and presumably with a human operator in the vehicle or wearing the backpack. Which emulates a cell station, not all tens of thousands of them in the state simultaneously. That feels much more like “DUI checkpoint checking all cars on this road at this time,” or “canvassing the neighborhood around the crime,” or “the stadium operator invited the cops into the security office to watch their CCTV feeds during the big game.” Precipitated on some reason—maybe not the specific human, but something that’s different about that place and time that warrants a human targeting their attention there. As opposed to the network-level, “all communications between all people all the time just in case” that constituted the “mass” surveillance that Snowden described (and Flock has since innovated and extended to the physical world). | | |
| ▲ | 8note 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > DUI checkpoint checking all cars on this road at this time isnt this only allowed in that you need a license to drive? theres no equivalent where the cops camp a walkway and demand everyone show whats in their pockets | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time 5G mid-band (let's go with the charitable option) has an effective range of up to 2miles. So no big deal, just all 5G communications within up to a 12sq mi circle surrounding the vehicle. Don't think that's exactly "targeted". | | |
| ▲ | defrost a day ago | parent [-] | | > Don't think that's exactly "targeted". Legally, there's a debate to be had. A telescope on a hill that can see everything within a 12sq mi circle Vs a "google maps" type 360 panorama lens on the same hill. Live only versus 24/7 recording, filtered (only pointed at one house of interest / only logging specific devices / only logging a network of devices that interact with devices of interest) The question re: "targeted" goes to whether it's opened ended recording of everything, or filtered and targeted sifting out of warranted subjects. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | preg_match a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If I install one great big Dr Evil dish that records all web traffic in texas, that would be mass. I have no idea how far these vehicles surveil, but I'm guess it's very far. |
|
|
