4 ms·
The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant. "cameras/eyeballs"... you understand tha
by ipsin 11y ago
The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant.
"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right?
Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye.
Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars".
- cpncrunch 11y ago>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant. I realise that, but you said "I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge" so I inferred that you thought the judgement was incorrect. >"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right? I'm not sure if you're trolling here. The slash meant "or" in this case, which should be been patently obvious. >Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye. Of course, and it's not illegal AFAIK. >Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars". The article doesn't mention "automated license plate readers".