| ▲ | jordanb 9 hours ago |
| The other thing that's going on is that Flock is essentially an always-on "dragnet." A "dragnet" is when you set up police checkpoints everywhere and essentially put entire cities under watch to find a fugitive. This happened in Boston after the bombings. "Dragnets" are illegal except in extreme circumstances (like a bombing). Flock is a "dragnet on demand." You have a digital dragnet in place not just in one city but potentially in every city, and with a single search can pull the results of the dragnet on anyone for any reason. |
|
| ▲ | hippich 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Recently was driving in the middle of nowhere in Texas.. And I saw a few flock cameras watching both ways in highways there too. So it is not just cities, states are implicated too. |
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | apercu 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably selling data to CBP/DEA. I went through a combined military and police checkpoint a bit north of Rio Hondo last August and it was surreal. | | |
| ▲ | pstuart 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's for a good cause! This has enabled the DEA to keep all dangerous drugs out of the country and avoid any sort of drug abuse epidemics! Think of the children! | | |
| ▲ | ryan_j_naughton 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm guessing this was /s sarcasm given the "think of the children" reference. Just saying so in case others didn't get the reference and thought you were being sincere... | | |
| ▲ | pstuart 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, it was entirely sarcasm. The DEA should be abolished, period. Not only is the War on Drugs a war of oppression on the citizenry, it has funded the cartels and promoted crime throughout the world. Secondly, the DEA controls what my doctor can prescribe me (I am "blessed" with chronic pain), and those fuckwits have no business in the doctor-patient relationship. And this will go on forever, because propaganda has brainwashed the populace that people need to be "protected" from dangerous drugs. Sure, drugs can be dangerous but the way it's being done now is beyond stupid, it is inherently evil. Do I sound angry? Perhaps it's because I am. There's so much needless death and suffering and people just shrug their shoulders. | |
| ▲ | allthetime 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uh, the rest of the comment is obviously false and sarcastic as well. Dangerous drugs are at an all time high and the epidemic is immediately apparent in downtown streets |
| |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Poe's law. |
| |
| ▲ | bix6 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Surreal in what way? Edit: thanks for the downvotes? Genuinely curious on GPs experience. | | |
| ▲ | jkahrs595 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In what way is going through a military/police checkpoint while driving ordinary? | | |
| ▲ | bix6 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t live in Texas but I thought they ran checkpoints like that near the border already? I was told to avoid the most southern zones when I drove cross country years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | mrtesthah 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Surreal in the way that your constitutional rights are being casually violated? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Constitution does not prohibit government (or anyone for that matter) from recording people in public spaces. ALPRs have been in widespread use since the 90s, I am continuously puzzled where people get the idea that this is new technology. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | ALPRs were always fed into databases, even back during the 90s. The whole point of ALPRs is to automate the task of reading license plates. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | They weren't connected to nationwide databases which automatically record, store, and aggregate individuals' movements. Not constitutionally equivalent. | | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database? | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter. Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements. Your phone's GPS data doesn't just track where you drive on public roads, it also tracks you walking around your private property. > The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). Sure, doesn't eliminate Fourth Amendment protections: the police can't just search your car because it's in public. But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data. Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. That's what distinguishes Flock from the other cases you mentioned. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'" > But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. I'm not saying either of these things. The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data". I don't care who collects the data (Flock, or Axon, or Google, or whoever): if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not affect other methods of monitoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States > The Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter was narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine related to other business records that might incidentally reveal location information, nor did it overrule prior decisions concerning conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. You're trying to expand the scope of the decision on Carpenter to encompasses video cameras, or location tracking in general, but that is not true. > The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data". No, it does not. It says that public activity may be protected, not that it is protected. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that this decision was narrowly scoped to the context of phone location data. > if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue. Carpenter only established this in the context of phone location information. You're inventing your own decision when you try to expand this to public facing cameras. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not talking about the specific ruling, I'm quoting the justification that the justices used in coming to that ruling, which is extremely relevant to modern day surveillance and whether LE using surveillance cameras from a third party to reconstruct people's movements constitutes unreasonable searches under 4A. Based on their arguments, it appears so. > nor did it overrule prior decisions I'm not saying it overruled prior decisions. I'm saying the reasoning of the judges has an effect on future surveillance technologies. > You're trying to expand the scope of the decision on Carpenter to encompasses video cameras, or location tracking in general, but that is not true. No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time). | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time). And this is just a factually wrong statement about the Carpenter decision. The Supreme Court didn't apply the same principles to other methods of surveillance. They could have. But they did not, and instead gave a narrowly scoped decision that was limited to cell phone location data. What you think the Supreme Court should have decided is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | apercu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The constitution was written centuries ago and its authors expected the founding documents to be routinely updated. | |
| ▲ | mrtesthah 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Notice that the person I responded to was speaking about a military checkpoint near the border. Do you know what that is? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If anything that makes surveillance even less noteworthy. Is it really surprising that a military installation has surveillance? | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They did not say installation. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | A checkpoint is a type of military installation. Specifically an installation with the purpose of monitoring and controlling traffic traveling through the checkpoint. | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A check point is a point where people or things are checked. It could be military or civilian. It could be permanent or temporary. It could be 1 person and a vehicle parked in a road. This would not be a military installation to most people. Or dictionaries. Or laws. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And the point remains, regardless of semantic quibbling: a checkpoint is probably the least surprising place to encounter surveillance. Arguably, it's the whole point of a checkpoint to surveil, "checking" in your terminology, who's passing through. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | apercu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was on a public highway. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bix6 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please see my reply to the other response |
| |
| ▲ | apercu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Surreal in that I’ve only dealt with that sort of thing (army checkpoints) in places that have active armed military conflicts. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kspacewalk2 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Flock is a retroactive dragnet on demand. Whenever you want to, you can go back in time and put a digital dragnet in an area of your choosing in order to identify someone you now know you want to find. |
|
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The difference is that your example involves physically stopping and searching people. This is not the case with Flock, which records images in public. The government does not and never did require any warrant or justification to record people in public spaces. Not just the government, but normal people too: you can whip out four phone and start recording people in public any time you want. |
| |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect? | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they're only tracking your movements in public, the no they do not. Again, you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect. They do not prohibit the police from surveilling or tracking you, they only control how the police is able to conduct that surveillance. If the police want to search your house or car, they need a warrant or at least probable cause for the latter. If they want to photograph you in public, they do not. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. It is true that a single police officer can post up somewhere and scan license plates without a warrant. The difference here is scale. The question of whether scale affects a "reasonable expectation of privacy" has never been addressed by the supreme court, though it has been raised before and discussed in concurring opinions. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers things like restrooms. Not highways, streets, parking lots, etc. This isn't relevant for Flock. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers whatever the public believes is reasonable. The original case creating this doctrine was about phone booths. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mypalmike 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Recording equipment didn’t exist when the constitution was written. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Supreme Court has set precedence that video recordings of public spaces fall under the plain view doctrine: police don't need a warrant or probable cause to record things in public view. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No? Which Supreme Court decision decided that persisting video recorded in public is a violation of the Fourth Amendment? | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Chatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself. Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead and record all you want, but when law enforcement decides to use that data, they have to get a warrant. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That case didn't cover public-facing cameras, that was about the government demanding telecoms hand over geolocation data on their users. The government was demanding that mobile providers hand over private data, akin to asking Google for your gmail contents. This is far removed from a camera set up in a public space. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It didn't just reveal Chatrie's movements, it revealed to movements of everyone in the geofenced area. And more importantly, it revealed movements even in private not just in public. Again, this is far removed from a camera in a public space. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chatrie was not about the dragnet capturing people in private spaces. It established that LE acquisition and aggregation of location information can constitute a fourth amendment search even when the observations are made in public. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | But the observations in the Chatrie case weren't made in public. This was private information that only Google had access to, and law enforcement went and demanded that Google hand over that private information. By contrast, a person can stand on a street corner with their phone and record everything a Flock camera records. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. So you're kind of agreeing with me here: the data is either private and subject to a warrant, or it is in public where individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt aggregated location information. And again, a person standing on a street corner is constitutionally distinct from LE following and tracking individuals movement over time. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. Specifically, the GPS coordinates logged by their cellphones. > So you're kind of agreeing with me here: the data is either private and subject to a warrant, or it is in public where individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt aggregated location information. You're missing the point: Flock camera's don't record where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. > And again, a person standing on a street corner is constitutionally distinct from LE following and tracking individuals movement over time. Wrong: as long as law enforcement are only tracking your movements in public, they don't need a warrant or probable cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gothbytes 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cool, then the Flock data should just be public and accessible to everyone since there's no expectation of privacy in public. If not, why not? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's nothing stopping you from setting up a webcam pointed out your window. If you want to set up your own public-facing ALPR cameras, there's nothing stopping you. | | |
| ▲ | gothbytes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can I put cameras up on every street corner and on every traffic light? Doesn't answer my question anyways. I'm asking if the government via a third party can have this ability, would you have any objection to the entirety of the public from having this data and camera access? I'm assuming not since the people who advocate for this technology see nothing wrong with it. If you do have a problem with public access to these cameras and tracking software, then it would be hypocritical. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you owned property, or otherwise got permission from the property owners to put cameras there, then yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | philipwhiuk 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FISA basically authorises dragnet on demand - it's how XKeyscore operates. |
| |
|
| ▲ | DoneWithAllThat 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No. It is not and to claim otherwise is hyperbole. The key difference is police stopping and/or questioning people en masse without reasonable suspicion is in fact illegal unless under extreme circumstances. Simply noting everyone’s license plate is wholly legal, and more importantly for this conversation, is drastically less intrusive and qualitatively different from a so-called dragnet. You don’t get to just conflate the two scenarios to better fit your personal preferences of what is or is not legal. |
| |
| ▲ | jordanb 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Dragnets have been constrained on both fourth and fifth amendment grounds. It's not merely the inconvenience of being stopped and questioned that makes a dragnet illegal, it is also an illegal search. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | But Flock isn't searching anybody. You keep calling it a dragnet, or an illegal search, but the courts have repeatedly held that recording images in public needs no warrant or probable case. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Law enforcement is using a third party (Flock) to get around constitutional requirements. A camera pointed at a public street isn't the same constitutional question as LE searching a persistent database to reconstruct someone's movements. The latter falls into fourth amendment search territory. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over? No, the putting public facing camera video into a database does not make it a search. The case you cited, Chatrie vs. United States, involved the government demanding that Google hand over private cellphone location data on everyone inside of a geofence boundary. The court decided that forcing Google to hand over geolocation data was akin to forcing Google to hand over email contents, which requires a warrant. You're trying to turn around and interpret this to saying that the plain view doctrine doesn't apply to ALPRs, which record public spaces. This isn't the case of law enforcement using a third party to get around constitutional requirements. The government could set up their own cameras doing exactly what Flock does, and it would still not violate anyone's constitutional requirements. Because people don't have a right to not be recorded in public, no matter how much you want that to be the case. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over The same amount that you do, dude. You're in every single one of these threads, and despite being proven wrong over and over again you keep being "confused" about how people are against this technology. Even in this thread, you keep responding with the same points based on your equivocation of an individual taking a picture in public and a state law enforcement organization aggregating and tracking individuals who haven't committed crimes. Try reading some SC cases and actually paying attention to the responses you're getting. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had already addressed your same points an hours earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629142 And yet you still start yet another thread insisting that a database makes public facing video cameras a privacy violation. When have I been "proven wrong over and over again"? The court cases you've cited are all about governments demanding private cell phone location information. You're trying to take decisions that amount to, "the police need a warrant to demand private cellphone location data from telecoms" and make the enormous leap to your imaginary decision, "the police cannot record people in public and search those recordings". | | |
| ▲ | text0404 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just because the specific ALPR technology was not being litigated doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to similar technologies. At issue here is the government being able to monitor and track people in public, not that photographs are ok because individuals can take them at will. > A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of Alito, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-402 Edit for your edit: you haven't refuted anything man, you keep trotting out the same arguments in those linked threads: - The data includes "private movements" which is why it's unconstitutional (the SC said aggregation of public data can impel privacy concerns) - An individual or LE can take a photograph of you or your house, therefore collecting photographs from geolocated cameras and tracking you over time is not constitutionally distinct (but it is) - The specific technology at the center of these cases are not ALPRs, therefore the rulings have no bearing on Flock (despite the fact that courts are not litigating the specific technology, but rather the constitutional principles of their use) | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The data includes "private movements" which is why it's unconstitutional (the SC said aggregation of public data can impel privacy concerns) But does it? You keep insisting this is the case, but your attempts to back up this claim are cases with totally different scenarios. Namely demanding that telecoms hand over location information. > - An individual or LE can take a photograph of you or your house, therefore collecting photographs from geolocated cameras and tracking you over time is not constitutionally distinct (but it is) The point is to emphasize that the information collected by Flock is in plain view. The plain view doctrine is well established. The police don't need a warrant to observe publicly visible things. > The specific technology at the center of these cases are not ALPRs, therefore the rulings have no bearing on Flock (despite the fact that courts are not litigating the specific technology, but rather the constitutional principles of their use) The cases you've cited all involved private information being obtained without a warrant. You can't just ignore the fact that a GPS tracker or cell phone location information also reveals private movements, as opposed to public facing camera which only record public activity. | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Again, you keep citing decisions without bothering to understand the context behind the. For instance, "To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment);" This is about the police planting a GPS tracker on someone's car - that's that "Jones" is referring to here. That case involved the police tracking someone in public and in private. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're confusing the technology used in Jones with the principle Carpenter cited it for: a person can have a 4A privacy interest in the whole of their physical movements, including movements in public. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the police accessing someone's vehicle without a warrant. You seem to be under the impression that the opinion of the court in the Jones was that everyone's public movements are private and the police need a warrant to track your public movements through and any all means. But that was not the decision of the court. The police and still just follow you, Jones notwithstanding. You can desire your public movements to be protected by the Fourth amendment all you want, but that does not make it so. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not claiming Jones held that cops need a warrant to visually follow someone on a public street. The point you're avoiding is that Carpenter expressly cited Jones for the proposition that people have a fourth amendment interest in the "whole of" their physical movements, and distinguished ordinary observation from technologically enabled, comprehensive tracking. Just because the camera is in public doesn't make it permissible. And maybe it wasn't the decision in Jones, but Carpenter specifically cites Alito's concurrence for the proposition that a person has a 4A privacy interest in aggregation of movement data and describes GPS tracking in Jones as raising those privacy concerns. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
