3 ms·

As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. The problem is w

As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. The problem is when they go nuts and try to capture "everything". The balance between the effort to keep an eye on a specific suspect in a specific case + budget/manpower/etc is reasonable vs our need for privacy.

benmarks 11y ago
Agreed. There is a de facto anonymity in public which is being reduced by mass surveillance. I generally eschew slippery slope arguments, but it's hard to ignore these points mid-slide.
dsp1234 11y ago
As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. That's the problem right there though. The FISC has already ruled that if there is no constitutional issue with a single targeted act, then adding more and more acts together can't create a constitutional issue out of whole cloth. In other words, if it's OK to do it with one person as a target, then it's OK to do it to everyone as a target. "Put another way, where one individual does not have a Fourth Amendment interest, grouping together a large number of similarly-situated individuals cannot result in a Fourth Amendment interest springing into existence ex nihilo. "[0] [0] - http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BR%2013-109%20Order-1.pdf http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BR%2013-109... page 9, paragraph 1
rlpb 11y ago
> As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. Fine without a warrant, or fine with a warrant, and why? The argument against "a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas" tends to be that it is both unjustified (no specific suspect/specific case) and that no such warrant was (or can be) issued. Law enforcement tends to dodge the issue with a "no warrant required" claim. But if we want to make judgements about what is right or wrong, I think it's important to separate these different aspects.

benmarks 11y ago

Agreed. There is a de facto anonymity in public which is being reduced by mass surveillance. I generally eschew slippery slope arguments, but it's hard to ignore these points mid-slide.

dsp1234 11y ago

As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. That's the problem right there though. The FISC has already ruled that if there is no constitutional issue with a single targeted act, then adding more and more acts together can't create a constitutional issue out of whole cloth. In other words, if it's OK to do it with one person as a target, then it's OK to do it to everyone as a target. "Put another way, where one individual does not have a Fourth Amendment interest, grouping together a large number of similarly-situated individuals cannot result in a Fourth Amendment interest springing into existence ex nihilo. "[0] [0] - http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BR%2013-109%20Order-1.pdf http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BR%2013-109... page 9, paragraph 1

rlpb 11y ago

> As long as its a webcam-per-suspect-per-place-of-business basis and not a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas it seems fine. Fine without a warrant, or fine with a warrant, and why? The argument against "a mass grab to do this across entire geographical areas" tends to be that it is both unjustified (no specific suspect/specific case) and that no such warrant was (or can be) issued. Law enforcement tends to dodge the issue with a "no warrant required" claim. But if we want to make judgements about what is right or wrong, I think it's important to separate these different aspects.