3 ms·

Surveillance in a public space is not a 4th Amendment search violation. The police are allowed to follow people around in public and note what they do without a

Surveillance in a public space is not a 4th Amendment search violation. The police are allowed to follow people around in public and note what they do without any kind of warrant. I'm fairly sure anyone is allowed to do this.

trhway 1y ago
Somehow government made distinction between a machine gun and a rifle in the context of 2nd Amendment, even though they are really the same thing in principle. Paradoxically, the same government fails to see the same distinction between an individual police officer following a person and a mass scale surveillance using electronic cameras everywhere with automated computer image analysis (the "machine gun" of 4th Amendment).
- lesuorac 1y ago
  I think the government just sees this as a distinction between a revolver and pistol and not a pistol and a machine gun. Consider the whole FISA system [1]. > (Glenn Greenwald): When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. The court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's process "'contains all the required elements' and that the revised NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment 'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. § 1881a(e)] and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States'". As but one typical example, The Guardian has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge John D. Bates which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines. Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Judicial_and_public_oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
- ianferrel 1y ago
  I absolutely agree with your point that automated surveillance of all public spaces is different than bespoke surveillance of individuals. But does that have anything to do with this article? It appears to cover surveillance of individuals by air marshals. >The Quiet Skies [sic] program assigned officers from the Federal Air Marshals Service (one of the police agencies within the Transportation Security Administration) to accompany and surveil pre-selected airline passengers on flights and in airports.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

trhway 1y ago

Somehow government made distinction between a machine gun and a rifle in the context of 2nd Amendment, even though they are really the same thing in principle. Paradoxically, the same government fails to see the same distinction between an individual police officer following a person and a mass scale surveillance using electronic cameras everywhere with automated computer image analysis (the "machine gun" of 4th Amendment).

lesuorac 1y ago
I think the government just sees this as a distinction between a revolver and pistol and not a pistol and a machine gun. Consider the whole FISA system [1]. > (Glenn Greenwald): When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. The court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's process "'contains all the required elements' and that the revised NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment 'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. § 1881a(e)] and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States'". As but one typical example, The Guardian has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge John D. Bates which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines. Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Judicial_and_public_oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
ianferrel 1y ago
I absolutely agree with your point that automated surveillance of all public spaces is different than bespoke surveillance of individuals. But does that have anything to do with this article? It appears to cover surveillance of individuals by air marshals. >The Quiet Skies [sic] program assigned officers from the Federal Air Marshals Service (one of the police agencies within the Transportation Security Administration) to accompany and surveil pre-selected airline passengers on flights and in airports.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]