3 ms·
You’re subtly altering the meaning of “in general public use”. As used in the court’s opinion, they’re drawing a distinction between whether the average person
by akerl_ 7y ago
You’re subtly altering the meaning of “in general public use”. As used in the court’s opinion, they’re drawing a distinction between whether the average person could perform this activity against another person. If the average person carried around thermal imaging tech that would have been capable of performing the same actions as the police, it would have not constituted an unlawful search. Extrapolating that to say that if the average person chooses to use always-on microphones to record themselves inside their homes, the police can record people inside their homes, is not an equivalent argument. It is totally viable to say that because so many people have the ability to record conversations in public places, the police can record conversations in public places. But that’s not the same thing at all.
- pas 7y agoMeh. These things are just a [re]interpretation away from each other. Even if we now think our model is clear and simple. That's why face recognition bans and other privacy protection laws ("personally identifiable information") are so welcome.
- gotstad 7y agoNo it’s not just re-interpretation away. From a legal standpoint it’s a whole other ballpark. It breaks the fundamental principle.
- pas 7y agoWhat is the principle exactly? Is that established in just one Supreme Court ruling? So can that simply overturned by a new one?
- Talanes 7y agoThe standard is "could any random passerby do this with legal and common tools," not "is this technology used commonly." Regardless of how the definition of what is or is not considered common shifts, the fundamentals of the two situations remain different.
- pas 7y agoMy point is that that standard was set in a Supreme Court ruling. And that is easily overturned by any other Supreme Court.