2 ms·

Because this "neighbor" is essentially a mandatory extension of you. It is nigh impossible to completely drop _voluntary_ tracking technology (smartphones, mode

Because this "neighbor" is essentially a mandatory extension of you. It is nigh impossible to completely drop _voluntary_ tracking technology (smartphones, modern cars, etc.) without making extreme sacrifices in utility, social life, and a million other things. Yes, a more technical person could use a FOSS phone without Google, but there's still the phone company to be that helpful "neighbor". At the end of the day, you have no privacy. You are being tracked and monitored 100% of the time, and law enforcement's ability to retroactively get a warrant to invade that privacy is proof of it. The only functional difference between this and state-mandated tracking is that you can look at funny pictures on this government tracker. Suppose the government were "track[ing] at all times". Would they be actively monitoring every single piece of data coming in and combing through it for any sort of illegal activity? No, they'd be using this data as a tool when they're made aware of a crime.

michael1999 5y ago
If this is your fight, you lost it decades ago. The US courts have consistently held that you have no 4th amendment rights to protect records held by an independent party. And any remaining protections were erased in 2001 by Cheney's war on privacy and the NSA dragnet. Remember room 641 -- and also remember that congress retroactively declared it all legal. Maybe you should have privacy rights -- I think so, and the EFF certainly thinks so! But there's certainly no "in the woods" exception to this long-standing practice. Go lobby your congress-critter and change the law! I'm much more concerned about some of the urban uses of this, where the police ask for details on everyone in a square mile downtown for an evening, and then troll through thousands of names. It is easy to imagine a sequence of coincidences leading to a forced false-confession. But here, where anyone returned would be either a genuine suspect, or possible witness, it just seems like diligent policing. How else would you investigate this crime, or a murder in the woods? - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/canada-double-murder-indigenous-metis-hunters https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/canada-double-...
- von_lohengramm 5y ago
  There is no fight here, there never was. It's been an unfortunate reality since before my parents were born. This hypothetical applies to innawoods too. Oh, you were the only people with your phones turned on when X happened in the middle of nowhere? It must be you, come on and fumble your words already so we have something to tie you on. Ultimately, the issue with mass surveillance isn't privacy (although I do appreciate privacy myself), the issue is how it empowers corrupt, overzealous, or otherwise idiotic subsets of law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment is not to guarantee your privacy, it's to guarantee your security from corrupt, overzealous, or otherwise idiotic subsets of law enforcement.

michael1999 5y ago

If this is your fight, you lost it decades ago. The US courts have consistently held that you have no 4th amendment rights to protect records held by an independent party. And any remaining protections were erased in 2001 by Cheney's war on privacy and the NSA dragnet. Remember room 641 -- and also remember that congress retroactively declared it all legal. Maybe you should have privacy rights -- I think so, and the EFF certainly thinks so! But there's certainly no "in the woods" exception to this long-standing practice. Go lobby your congress-critter and change the law! I'm much more concerned about some of the urban uses of this, where the police ask for details on everyone in a square mile downtown for an evening, and then troll through thousands of names. It is easy to imagine a sequence of coincidences leading to a forced false-confession. But here, where anyone returned would be either a genuine suspect, or possible witness, it just seems like diligent policing. How else would you investigate this crime, or a murder in the woods? - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/canada-double-murder-indigenous-metis-hunters https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/canada-double-...

von_lohengramm 5y ago
There is no fight here, there never was. It's been an unfortunate reality since before my parents were born. This hypothetical applies to innawoods too. Oh, you were the only people with your phones turned on when X happened in the middle of nowhere? It must be you, come on and fumble your words already so we have something to tie you on. Ultimately, the issue with mass surveillance isn't privacy (although I do appreciate privacy myself), the issue is how it empowers corrupt, overzealous, or otherwise idiotic subsets of law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment is not to guarantee your privacy, it's to guarantee your security from corrupt, overzealous, or otherwise idiotic subsets of law enforcement.