3 ms·

I wonder if an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment right to be free from unseasonable search. Collecting your travel movements automati

by edoo 8y ago

I wonder if an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment right to be free from unseasonable search. Collecting your travel movements automatically without cause might apply. It is an interesting problem because there is no expectation of privacy in public. If you venture into public the police or anyone can stake you out and take pictures of you. Devices that do this are just an efficiency increase. The true root of the issue might be whether the government has a right to collect information about you at all. Before taxes about 100 years ago they really had no reason to.

sys_64738 8y ago
This is no different than a spotter LEO or witness recognizing you from a mugshot or from video surveillance. It's just that it's done with EVERYBODY now.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  But scale is an important difference in legality and morality. Consider the following example. Calling someone to ask them on a date is normal acceptable behavior. Doing it 20 times an hour, 3 hours a day, every day, quickly becomes immoral and illegal.
  - 0xfeba 8y ago
    > Calling someone to ask them on a date is normal acceptable behavior. Doing it 20 times an hour, 3 hours a day, every day, quickly becomes immoral and illegal. Not if you're calling different people, totally legal.
  - sys_64738 8y ago
    At some point it has to change from legal to illegal. That is, with n calls then you're still legal but that n+1th call makes you a felon. What is n? What is n for facial rekognition?
    - anticensor 8y ago
      k (number of takes) does not matter. r (number of uses) does.
- Paul-ish 8y ago
  The US supreme court ruled that putting a GPS device on a car constituted a search [1]. People at the time were making the same argument you were. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

by edoo 8y ago

sys_64738 8y ago

This is no different than a spotter LEO or witness recognizing you from a mugshot or from video surveillance. It's just that it's done with EVERYBODY now.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
But scale is an important difference in legality and morality. Consider the following example. Calling someone to ask them on a date is normal acceptable behavior. Doing it 20 times an hour, 3 hours a day, every day, quickly becomes immoral and illegal.
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  > Calling someone to ask them on a date is normal acceptable behavior. Doing it 20 times an hour, 3 hours a day, every day, quickly becomes immoral and illegal. Not if you're calling different people, totally legal.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  At some point it has to change from legal to illegal. That is, with n calls then you're still legal but that n+1th call makes you a felon. What is n? What is n for facial rekognition?
  - anticensor 8y ago
    k (number of takes) does not matter. r (number of uses) does.
Paul-ish 8y ago
The US supreme court ruled that putting a GPS device on a car constituted a search [1]. People at the time were making the same argument you were. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones