| |
| ▲ | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
