20 ms·

SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

• denton-scratch 3y ago
  Nasty ACLU using a dark pattern: the page comes up overlaid with a donation panel. The panel can be dismissed, but only by clicking a [X] button that is well outside the panel. You have to look for it.
• rektide 3y ago
  I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices. The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing the spying, as here, seems almost old hat. But what absurd data they can get, given the high heights of technology we have flown to.
  • rasz 3y ago
    They dont have to be mounted by cops, do they? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBMkg8G5tQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBMkg8G5tQ
    • mfer 3y ago
      In most places there are limits to who can put things on poles. For example, where I live it’s the local municipality, utilities, telephone companies, and cable companies. That’s it.
      • giantg2 3y ago
        Usually those are the parties required to have access to them. Whichever party owns/maintains the poles can usually grant access to additonal parties if they see fit.
  • nonethewiser 3y ago
    They are judges not politicians. Other than that, fair enough
  • justinclift 3y ago
    Hmmm, how feasible do you reckon it would be to start using the same "buy data from third parties" on these senators and Supreme Court judges? And probably do the same for the (registered) lobbyists and political donors, then look for after hours instances where the data shows their location being very close / overlapping. Or something along those lines anyway. Would probably take a bunch more thinking about + some test investigation. ;)
    • noisy_boy 3y ago
      Problem is that activists haven't kept up with the technology. What is the point of shouting with placards when you can invest the donations to setting up legitimate companies that can do data collection on the lawmakers, following the current law, and then just publicize it. See how quickly the law changes (though instead of changes for the general public, it'll probably be in terms of just adding exclusionary clauses for lawmakers e.g. like how insider trading is rampant among them and nobody gets thrown into jail for doing it while I have to sit through yearly preaching organized by my company about what a terrible, horrible, bad thing it is).
• Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago
  Because of course they won't, seems like too much hard work when they've got other civil liberties to overturn and steamroll.
  • dang 3y ago
    Please don't post flamebait. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. You're welcome, of course, to make your substantive points thoughtfully. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• chmod600 3y ago
  SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently. They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with. And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    > SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently. I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.
  • blagie 3y ago
    OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side. Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example: - The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity - They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc. - They might not have time, or there might be more important issues ... and so on. I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.
    • pmoriarty 3y ago
      The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.
• Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  It's interesting to note that -conversely- German laws on camera surveillance are very strict!
  • alewi481 3y ago
    I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.
    • lamontcg 3y ago
      So after the US gets its own Stasi we should eventually get better anti-surveillance laws.
      • alewi481 3y ago
        Depending on the extent to which surveillance and state control become embedded, it may require the advent of the Second American Republic to achieve their dissolution.
      • stjohnswarts 3y ago
        We basically have the beginnings of one with MAGA politicians flourishing.
• MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.
  • zenexer 3y ago
    A while back, there was a leak of some sort whereby many of these pole cameras in Massachusetts became accessible to the public. While this is anecdotal, it seemed to me at the time that the cameras were more than capable of peering through windows, as though someone were standing on the sidewalk with binoculars. The cameras themselves were concealed so they looked like utility equipment.
  • myrmidon 3y ago
    I think there is a significant disconnect between a simple, consistent "theoretical" view on camera privacy and actual human sensibilities: I am very confident that humans in general are absolutely not comfortable with being the target of video recording; this became very evident with the whole google glass fiasco, when people wearing those were sometimes straight up banned from restaurants for making people uncomfortable- while surveillance cameras are less "targeted", less visible and at least provide marginal utility, it seems very clear to me that most humans consider it not appropriate to "video record" in every place that you could be "watched" by a bystander (and even just looking at people can drift into offensiveness- consider younger attractive persons veing creepily stared at). I personally believe that cameras in public places should not be blanket banned, but that individuals should have a viable avenue to get them removed if they care to expend some (legal?) effort.
  • jzb 3y ago
    The idea is that the length and amount of surveillance is invasive. You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week. But if your neighbors take turns sitting on their porch, watching every move you make - if you can never come and go without them watching - and they’re taking notes and pictures of every visitor, every package, etc. - that would feel invasive for many people. That’s the argument. Do you have a expectation of privacy in public? No. Do you have an expectation of constant surveillance? Also no.
• giantg2 3y ago
  I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes. There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.
  • scott_w 3y ago
    > police could just buy the data legally. Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?
    • gumby 3y ago
      Your position is logical, but unfortunately there is by now a large body of precedent saying that that gaping loophole is fine. So for example police can’t track your movement without a warrant, but they can buy that info from the phone companies. This could be fixed very simply by a law. The chances of such a law being passed are sadly extremely low.
      • giantg2 3y ago
        "but they can buy that info from the phone companies" Actually, they are starting to crack down on some of that with the recent SCOTUS case on cell location tracking. I forget the case name, but that was within the last 4 or so years.
      • matthewmcg 3y ago
        Correct. This is called "third party doctrine," and the theory is that since you've voluntarily entrusted this data to the third party, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in it and a warrant is not needed.
    • 3y ago
• LatteLazy 3y ago
  SCOTUS has been ducking these cases for almost 2 decades now. The concept of a meaningful warrant being required is basically dead at this point in the USA.
• batch12 3y ago
  I'm curious if there is a way to detect these. For local access (in case cellular fails or isn't needed), maybe they have a Bluetooth radio listening or a wifi AP.
• photochemsyn 3y ago
  The American government, including the political, bureaucratic and the judicial sectors, seems quite eager to implement the Chinese system of mass surveillance and control of the population, and would do so immediately if given the chance. Incidentally, this warrantless camera surveillance of specific targets is fairly similar to the current practice of private companies engaging in surveillance of all kinds of online communities, then selling their collected data to the FBI, which thus avoids the need to go before a judge to get a warrant. https://www.leefang.com/p/private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and https://www.leefang.com/p/private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and
• jjtheblunt 3y ago
  On police documentary shows, it’s frequently stated that anything in public view is not considered private. Is this different here (legally that is)?
  • friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Probably not. Honestly the only difference between how things are done traditionally and this is that the cop watching the footage isn't in a car outside with a video camera. Fundamentally functionally the scenarios are no different, one is just less cumbersome to do. Now, I do think that even manual surveillance should require a warrant, as well as purchasing private evidence such as doorbell camera footage, but I'm unlikely to see a ruling in my favor on that any time soon.
• friend_and_foe 3y ago
  As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization. The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.
  • 93po 3y ago
    ACLU creating an emotionally charged presentation makes sense if they: 1. Know the SC is going to decline anyway 2. Want press coverage and as much visibility on this as possible regardless ACLU knows what they're doing. They're using the opportunity for (good) PR