3 ms·

if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. why should they need a warrant if they pay a private in

by ruined 1y ago

if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. why should they need a warrant if they pay a private individual to do it? why should they need a warrant if they pay a private company to do it electronically? why should they need a warrant when they pay a private company to do it electronically while on the clock as part of their official duty? why should they ever need a warrant? they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it.

vkou 1y ago
> if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. No, they wouldn't need a warrant, because they'd be stalking you.
- ruined 1y ago
  flock is stalking you
  - vkou 1y ago
    Not in my town, it told it to flock off. Seriously, though, stalking generally requires targeted behavior.
iamnothere 1y ago
> they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it. Exactly, people act like “warrants” are going to protect you from authoritarians. It’s literally just a piece of paper! All this going on about surveillance and privacy really is futile.
- samrus 1y ago
  If you cant teust the government then yes, the laws are all just words. The contitution is just words at this point. But if you cant trust some parts of the government (including, opposition and non executive branches) then laws can help protect the innocent a little bit
lesuorac 1y ago
I'm not talking private. Think of it this way. The government pays somebody to collect data about how many bicyclists use an intersection to decided if they should add a dedicated bike light. Why would the government need to use a warrant to get that information? That's the same situation here. Flock is placing the cameras because the government has paid them to.
- hobs 1y ago
  It's actually very simple - because of the nature of their use of the data. Laws can have subtlety, its not a magic on or off switch - if you want aggregate data for the number of bicycles that's not the DNA sample from each passerby.
- latexr 1y ago
  > That's the same situation here. There is a monumental difference between counting how many cyclists use an intersection and recording the license plates of cars. If the former, you don’t store any personal information, all you know is how many pass by. You don’t even know if they were different people, 10 of the 50 cyclists you saw could’ve been the same person going in circles. In the latter, you know which vehicles went by, and when. Even if you don’t record the time you saw them, from the dates of the study you can narrow it down considerably. Those can be mapped to specific people.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  The 4th amendment is complicated, and the interpretations from the last 250 years, make it more so: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There's a few issues 1. Unreasonable is the key word here. You purposely chose an arguably reasonable thing (counting you anonymously as you pass through an intersection). Many people think that personally logging your movements throughout the day using automated superhuman means crosses the line into unreasonable. 2. There is also a separate issue that the law allows third parties to willingly hand over/sell information about you that many people think would be subject to warrant rules. You only need a warrant when the information is being held by a party that doesn't want to hand it over willingly. 3. Intent matters in the law. The intent behind counting cyclists is very different than the intent behind setting up a system for tracking people over time, even though the mechanism may be the same. 4. There is also the issue that currently legal != morally correct.

by ruined 1y ago

vkou 1y ago

> if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. No, they wouldn't need a warrant, because they'd be stalking you.

ruined 1y ago
flock is stalking you
- vkou 1y ago
  Not in my town, it told it to flock off. Seriously, though, stalking generally requires targeted behavior.

iamnothere 1y ago

> they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it. Exactly, people act like “warrants” are going to protect you from authoritarians. It’s literally just a piece of paper! All this going on about surveillance and privacy really is futile.

samrus 1y ago
If you cant teust the government then yes, the laws are all just words. The contitution is just words at this point. But if you cant trust some parts of the government (including, opposition and non executive branches) then laws can help protect the innocent a little bit

lesuorac 1y ago

I'm not talking private. Think of it this way. The government pays somebody to collect data about how many bicyclists use an intersection to decided if they should add a dedicated bike light. Why would the government need to use a warrant to get that information? That's the same situation here. Flock is placing the cameras because the government has paid them to.

hobs 1y ago
It's actually very simple - because of the nature of their use of the data. Laws can have subtlety, its not a magic on or off switch - if you want aggregate data for the number of bicycles that's not the DNA sample from each passerby.
latexr 1y ago
> That's the same situation here. There is a monumental difference between counting how many cyclists use an intersection and recording the license plates of cars. If the former, you don’t store any personal information, all you know is how many pass by. You don’t even know if they were different people, 10 of the 50 cyclists you saw could’ve been the same person going in circles. In the latter, you know which vehicles went by, and when. Even if you don’t record the time you saw them, from the dates of the study you can narrow it down considerably. Those can be mapped to specific people.
dghlsakjg 1y ago
The 4th amendment is complicated, and the interpretations from the last 250 years, make it more so: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There's a few issues 1. Unreasonable is the key word here. You purposely chose an arguably reasonable thing (counting you anonymously as you pass through an intersection). Many people think that personally logging your movements throughout the day using automated superhuman means crosses the line into unreasonable. 2. There is also a separate issue that the law allows third parties to willingly hand over/sell information about you that many people think would be subject to warrant rules. You only need a warrant when the information is being held by a party that doesn't want to hand it over willingly. 3. Intent matters in the law. The intent behind counting cyclists is very different than the intent behind setting up a system for tracking people over time, even though the mechanism may be the same. 4. There is also the issue that currently legal != morally correct.