5 ms·

Illegal search and seizure?

infecto 2y ago
In most jurisdictions is there a notion of privacy while in public spaces? Since the article is about the US and NC I am referring to US only.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  There is a notion that the government has to justify their intrusions on the privacy of the public as we are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Setting up security camera at a public park to investigate crimes: OK Setting up security camera at a public park to track citizens through facial recognition: Not OK
  - infecto 2y ago
    Back to my point, I don't believe these cameras are illegal in the majority of jurisdictions.
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      The legality issue is really about warrantless searches and not the ability of a private company to lease public utility poles to place cameras. It is clearly legal for a company to willingly share data with law enforcement, a restriction on that would be a First Amendment violation. It is clearly legal for the government to compel a company to provide data as means of investigating crimes "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The question is whether the government, in cahoots with a company, can perform mass warrantless searches on every citizen under the plain-view doctrine when they have no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
      - infecto 2y ago
        Back to the point. I don’t believe most jurisdictions find this illegal. You can go down the path of a sovereign citizen but the point remains, most jurisdictions do not find Flock cameras illegals.
        UncleEntity 2y ago
        Sure, it isn't "illegal" as it hasn't been challenged in court (to the best of my knowledge). Doesn't actually say much as everything is by default legal until it is found (or legislated) illegal. Just like police using infrared cameras peering into people's homes to find marijuana grows was "legal" until the courts found it to be a Forth Amendment violation. And why is someone who believes the constitution actually means something labeled "a sovereign citizen"? Were the people during the civil right's movement wrong because they believed the government could do a better job?
        gnicholas 2y ago
        This is a good point, and the infrared camera case is the one that came to my mind as well. That case can be easily distinguished on the grounds that Flock doesn’t use any super-human abilities (i.e., infrared sensors) to see the license plates. The Court would have to interpret it broadly, to prohibit use of technology that allows for rapid/broad collection of data at a scale that was not possible by human efforts alone. That may come, but it’s far from certain when (or what side of the line Flock would fall on).
        UncleEntity 2y ago
        One could interpret Katz v. US[0]: > My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". as people knowingly expose their licence plates in public places, as this is a legal requirement for the use of highways, they also reasonably believe they have an expectation of privacy against a constant and continuous search because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". Of course, you know, this is just my opinion, man. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
woodruffw 2y ago
What is being searched and/or seized? The entire point of a license plate is that it's publicly readable, and US federal courts have consistently held that the exteriors of cars (and parts visible through windows) are not considered private spaces for the purposes of warrant requirements. That isn't to say that you can't make a good civic argument against increased public surveillance; only that the current practices are not meaningfully disputed as unconstitutional.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  U.S. v. Jones and Riley v. California aren't that clear cut. IIRC they both said that mass surveillance that would "out" people's private lives (e.g. going to a gay club) might cross the boundary into an unreasonable search.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > The entire point of a license plate is that it's publicly readable Sure. By eyeballs. But when you install technology that makes the license plate a tracking device where they can map out your movements minute by minute as if you had some radio beacon hidden under the bumper, they're not "publicly reading" it. Why would the radio beacon be illegal without a warrant, but this be legal without it? They accomplish the same.
  - lonelyasacloud 2y ago
    >Sure. By eyeballs So in terms of concern about the enforcement of bad laws surely the correct way to deal with those is in the legislative process, rather than on relying on gaps in human enforcement later on? Otherwise why artificially make law enforcement more inefficient?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      > So in terms of concern about the enforcement of bad laws surely the correct way to deal with those is in the legislative process, rather than In emergency situations, you rely on whatever mechanisms are still partially functional. We're 0.003 milliseconds into the fatal crash, and here you are saying "but are we really going to rely on the airbags, shouldn't we fix the seat belts"? If this is what passes for insightful and mature for you, we're all fucking doomed. >Otherwise why artificially make law enforcement more inefficient? How exactly does one grow up thinking that the measurement they want to optimize for in law enforcement, above all others, is "efficiency"?
renewiltord 2y ago
It's actually pretty crazy that when I walk to work I illegally search and seize everyone I lay my eyes on. So far I've gotten away with it every day. Sometimes I even do it at work. Illegally searched and seized my coworker's cat the other day, but he just illegally searched and seized me and then meowed.
- tonyarkles 2y ago
  > I illegally search and seize everyone I lay my eyes on This is where you need to keep in mind that there's a spectrum and a balance. Ultimately it's up to the Supreme Court to decide where the cut-off points are. To take your example and riff on it a bit: - There's you walking to work and mentally taking note of everyone you walk past - There's you walking to work with a video camera and casually recording everyone you walk past - There's you walking to work with a video camera and getting into people's personal space to make sure your video accurate captures enough of their facial features to make a positive biometric identification - There's you walking to work, seeing someone in particular, and following them to their destination while recording the entire time - There's you putting up a high-resolution camera in front of your house to record everyone walking past, whether or not you're watching it at the time - There's you putting up time-synchronized high-resolution cameras on every light post in your neighbourhood - There's taking your network of time-synchronized high-resolution cameras and adding facial/person recognition to it so that you automatically get a timestamped path of where everyone walked at what time - There's expanding your network of time-synchronized high-resolution cameras with person recognition to cover your entire city and selling access to person-location data Figuring out where the acceptable/unacceptable cutoff line is for private citizens, corporations, and governments is going to be an interesting question that'll have to be answered in the near future.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  You don't seem to understand the implications of systems like these so let me give you a scenario of something in the near future that can happen: A 33-year-old woman became pregnant due to a failure in her birth control but is not looking to have a child and is looking to have an abortion. She goes to her OBGYN and finds out that the fetus is around 7 weeks of gestation, and therefore, cannot have an abortion in her state. She schedules an abortion procedure with a doctor out of state that does allow abortions after 6 weeks. She drives to the airport, flies out to the state, has the procedure, and then flies back home. Per her state's law (let's say it's Texas) she did not utilize the highways or drive through a town like Amarillo to receive the abortion.[1] Systems such as these, selling user data to both state and federal agencies bought data that included her travel patterns in it. The system (recognizing her license plate, vehicle make and model, and the state having that plate registered in her name) shows that she has traveled to a clinic in the state, then later to the airport (with TSA facial identification indicating she did indeed fly), she was then spotted at a clinic in another state by their Flock cameras, then flew back home and drove home. But also, the government agencies bought data from a period tracker and it also had her information in there. With GPS, IP Address, and other data they were able to attribute data to her that showed that she was late on her period.[2] The state then charges her with the crime of receiving an abortion out of state, even though she did not break any law. She did not receive an abortion in the state, nor travel through a city that prohibits that. But good luck explaining that to an Attorney General who decides to follow the "spirit of the law" in this case rather than the text of the law. This is what people are afraid of. No human being would ever be allowed to conduct this level of spying on anyone without violating their right to privacy. But because we allowed this data to be collected and shared for commercial purposes, it's somehow legal and okay? We are becoming a police state where who you know, where you go, what you do, your patterns, your habits, your scrolling, your fitness tracking, your purchases, and the amount of time you spend walking around Walmart are now all available to a government. These aren't systems you can "opt" out of. Facebook tracks and sells your data through their Pixel whether you have an account or not. These Flock cameras track and sell your location data whether you're driving, walking, riding a bike, etc. There is no opting out, there is no not participating, there is no way to protect your privacy and continue to exist in this world. These are very real fears that people have, and all it takes is for a government to get through its bureaucracy once to determine how to process this deluge of information and then there is no turning back. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/abortion-travel-ban-amarillo-texas/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/abortion-travel-ban-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-abortion-period-apps https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme...

In most jurisdictions is there a notion of privacy while in public spaces? Since the article is about the US and NC I am referring to US only.

UncleEntity 2y ago
There is a notion that the government has to justify their intrusions on the privacy of the public as we are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Setting up security camera at a public park to investigate crimes: OK Setting up security camera at a public park to track citizens through facial recognition: Not OK
- infecto 2y ago
  Back to my point, I don't believe these cameras are illegal in the majority of jurisdictions.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    The legality issue is really about warrantless searches and not the ability of a private company to lease public utility poles to place cameras. It is clearly legal for a company to willingly share data with law enforcement, a restriction on that would be a First Amendment violation. It is clearly legal for the government to compel a company to provide data as means of investigating crimes "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The question is whether the government, in cahoots with a company, can perform mass warrantless searches on every citizen under the plain-view doctrine when they have no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
    - infecto 2y ago
      Back to the point. I don’t believe most jurisdictions find this illegal. You can go down the path of a sovereign citizen but the point remains, most jurisdictions do not find Flock cameras illegals.
      - UncleEntity 2y ago
        Sure, it isn't "illegal" as it hasn't been challenged in court (to the best of my knowledge). Doesn't actually say much as everything is by default legal until it is found (or legislated) illegal. Just like police using infrared cameras peering into people's homes to find marijuana grows was "legal" until the courts found it to be a Forth Amendment violation. And why is someone who believes the constitution actually means something labeled "a sovereign citizen"? Were the people during the civil right's movement wrong because they believed the government could do a better job?
        gnicholas 2y ago
        This is a good point, and the infrared camera case is the one that came to my mind as well. That case can be easily distinguished on the grounds that Flock doesn’t use any super-human abilities (i.e., infrared sensors) to see the license plates. The Court would have to interpret it broadly, to prohibit use of technology that allows for rapid/broad collection of data at a scale that was not possible by human efforts alone. That may come, but it’s far from certain when (or what side of the line Flock would fall on).
        UncleEntity 2y ago
        One could interpret Katz v. US[0]: > My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". as people knowingly expose their licence plates in public places, as this is a legal requirement for the use of highways, they also reasonably believe they have an expectation of privacy against a constant and continuous search because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". Of course, you know, this is just my opinion, man. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

woodruffw 2y ago

What is being searched and/or seized? The entire point of a license plate is that it's publicly readable, and US federal courts have consistently held that the exteriors of cars (and parts visible through windows) are not considered private spaces for the purposes of warrant requirements. That isn't to say that you can't make a good civic argument against increased public surveillance; only that the current practices are not meaningfully disputed as unconstitutional.

qingcharles 2y ago
U.S. v. Jones and Riley v. California aren't that clear cut. IIRC they both said that mass surveillance that would "out" people's private lives (e.g. going to a gay club) might cross the boundary into an unreasonable search.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> The entire point of a license plate is that it's publicly readable Sure. By eyeballs. But when you install technology that makes the license plate a tracking device where they can map out your movements minute by minute as if you had some radio beacon hidden under the bumper, they're not "publicly reading" it. Why would the radio beacon be illegal without a warrant, but this be legal without it? They accomplish the same.
- lonelyasacloud 2y ago
  >Sure. By eyeballs So in terms of concern about the enforcement of bad laws surely the correct way to deal with those is in the legislative process, rather than on relying on gaps in human enforcement later on? Otherwise why artificially make law enforcement more inefficient?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > So in terms of concern about the enforcement of bad laws surely the correct way to deal with those is in the legislative process, rather than In emergency situations, you rely on whatever mechanisms are still partially functional. We're 0.003 milliseconds into the fatal crash, and here you are saying "but are we really going to rely on the airbags, shouldn't we fix the seat belts"? If this is what passes for insightful and mature for you, we're all fucking doomed. >Otherwise why artificially make law enforcement more inefficient? How exactly does one grow up thinking that the measurement they want to optimize for in law enforcement, above all others, is "efficiency"?

renewiltord 2y ago

It's actually pretty crazy that when I walk to work I illegally search and seize everyone I lay my eyes on. So far I've gotten away with it every day. Sometimes I even do it at work. Illegally searched and seized my coworker's cat the other day, but he just illegally searched and seized me and then meowed.

tonyarkles 2y ago
> I illegally search and seize everyone I lay my eyes on This is where you need to keep in mind that there's a spectrum and a balance. Ultimately it's up to the Supreme Court to decide where the cut-off points are. To take your example and riff on it a bit: - There's you walking to work and mentally taking note of everyone you walk past - There's you walking to work with a video camera and casually recording everyone you walk past - There's you walking to work with a video camera and getting into people's personal space to make sure your video accurate captures enough of their facial features to make a positive biometric identification - There's you walking to work, seeing someone in particular, and following them to their destination while recording the entire time - There's you putting up a high-resolution camera in front of your house to record everyone walking past, whether or not you're watching it at the time - There's you putting up time-synchronized high-resolution cameras on every light post in your neighbourhood - There's taking your network of time-synchronized high-resolution cameras and adding facial/person recognition to it so that you automatically get a timestamped path of where everyone walked at what time - There's expanding your network of time-synchronized high-resolution cameras with person recognition to cover your entire city and selling access to person-location data Figuring out where the acceptable/unacceptable cutoff line is for private citizens, corporations, and governments is going to be an interesting question that'll have to be answered in the near future.
notaustinpowers 2y ago
You don't seem to understand the implications of systems like these so let me give you a scenario of something in the near future that can happen: A 33-year-old woman became pregnant due to a failure in her birth control but is not looking to have a child and is looking to have an abortion. She goes to her OBGYN and finds out that the fetus is around 7 weeks of gestation, and therefore, cannot have an abortion in her state. She schedules an abortion procedure with a doctor out of state that does allow abortions after 6 weeks. She drives to the airport, flies out to the state, has the procedure, and then flies back home. Per her state's law (let's say it's Texas) she did not utilize the highways or drive through a town like Amarillo to receive the abortion.[1] Systems such as these, selling user data to both state and federal agencies bought data that included her travel patterns in it. The system (recognizing her license plate, vehicle make and model, and the state having that plate registered in her name) shows that she has traveled to a clinic in the state, then later to the airport (with TSA facial identification indicating she did indeed fly), she was then spotted at a clinic in another state by their Flock cameras, then flew back home and drove home. But also, the government agencies bought data from a period tracker and it also had her information in there. With GPS, IP Address, and other data they were able to attribute data to her that showed that she was late on her period.[2] The state then charges her with the crime of receiving an abortion out of state, even though she did not break any law. She did not receive an abortion in the state, nor travel through a city that prohibits that. But good luck explaining that to an Attorney General who decides to follow the "spirit of the law" in this case rather than the text of the law. This is what people are afraid of. No human being would ever be allowed to conduct this level of spying on anyone without violating their right to privacy. But because we allowed this data to be collected and shared for commercial purposes, it's somehow legal and okay? We are becoming a police state where who you know, where you go, what you do, your patterns, your habits, your scrolling, your fitness tracking, your purchases, and the amount of time you spend walking around Walmart are now all available to a government. These aren't systems you can "opt" out of. Facebook tracks and sells your data through their Pixel whether you have an account or not. These Flock cameras track and sell your location data whether you're driving, walking, riding a bike, etc. There is no opting out, there is no not participating, there is no way to protect your privacy and continue to exist in this world. These are very real fears that people have, and all it takes is for a government to get through its bureaucracy once to determine how to process this deluge of information and then there is no turning back. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/abortion-travel-ban-amarillo-texas/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/13/abortion-travel-ban-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-abortion-period-apps https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme...