3 ms·
The Supreme Court has historically recognized this, too - the FBI tried to argue that putting a tracker on a car was no different than having an agent tail the
by roughly 1y ago
The Supreme Court has historically recognized this, too - the FBI tried to argue that putting a tracker on a car was no different than having an agent tail the car, and were roundly shut down for that.
- tptacek 1y agoYes, but the majority opinion in that case was based on the physical intrusion of placing the tracker, which doesn't apply here.
- ytpete 1y agoI've always thought it will be really interesting to see the courts grapple with mass tracking by drone instead someday. Precisely for this reason, that the rationale the Supreme Court previously used to strike down warrantless tracking devices wouldn't apply. It's an even closer analogy to actual human officers tailing the car, just replaced by robots. Certainly hope they would still overrule that too... but drawing a bright line somewhere between "scales really cheaply due to technology" and "scales more expensively due to human labor" is such a fascinating and critical problem to solve in the era we live in now.