4 ms·

To the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citize

To the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citizens need authorization to film people in public. Many Flock cameras are also privately owned, too.

reactordev 4mo ago
All flock cameras are privately owned, by flock. They install them at a charge per the jurisdiction that orders them and pays the subscription costs… those subscription fees allow Mr Local Law Abuser to lookup any license plate it has read, when, where, with a picture of the vehicle. https://deflock.org https://deflock.org You’d be surprised how many there are.
- __MatrixMan__ 4mo ago
  So when I put a bag over the camera, it's up to flock to remove it? I haven't stuck around to find out who shows up. Sometimes it takes a week or so, other times it's next day.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  The point is, some of flock's customers are private businesses. E.g. the Home Depot by me uses them. No amount of pressure by voters can take those cameras down.
  - reactordev 4mo ago
    Shady part is, all of flock’s customers are businesses. Municipalities that use flock do so through a contracting company, it’s always once removed…
hilariously 4mo ago
https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  The case you linked isn't about the government filming people in public, though. Carpenter vs. US was a case about the government demanding private information about users' locations from cell service providers. By comparison, the 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal :https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/18-10341.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1... An officer doesn't need a warrant to sit at a cross section and write down license plate numbers. A device doing the same thing is also legal.
  - hilariously 4mo ago
    Of course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward.
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded around the beach while disrobed, some of them bringing their children with them. People sailed by and photographed many of the nudists, and put their images online. Many alleged that must be a violation of some privacy law, but no, the law in Washington (and most, perhaps all, of the US) is quite clear: if you're in public, you can be filmed and photographed. If you don't want to be filmed nude, don't go walking around naked in public. Regardless, back to the topic at hand, the fact that Flock cameras a in public spaces does in fact mean that there's no requirement to get a warrant to use them.
      - jollyllama 4mo ago
        So what's the logical conclusion, that there will be a company with a drone following every individual in a public space at all times and that the government will pay for the data?
qmr 4mo ago
Wrong. See Carpenter v US.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    I feel like you haven't properly thought this through. Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? More generally you're confidently making wild extrapolations from the current very limited case law without regard for either its limitations or the general temperature that can be inferred from the full opinions.
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      > Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. It's an encrypted broadcast, not a public broadcast. This is why the police needed to ask the mobile service providers for this data. It is not public. > For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? The data is not broadly analogous. One is encrypted radio traffic. The other is unencrypted, and you can record it yourself with a pen, paper, and the Mk I eyeball. This is why the "plain view" doctrine applies. Again, the courts have already ruled on the use of ALPRs. The defense tried to use US vs Carpenter in US vs Yang, and the courts did not accept that argument that ALPRs are analogous to cell phone location data.
mingus88 4mo ago
The year is 2026 and the 4th amendment only means what the currently sitting justices say that it means, and the executive branch was literally given a pass to violate any law on the books that they want.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  The 9th circuit upheld that the police do not need warrants to operate and access data from license plate readers. The 9th Circuit isn't exactly a conservative stronghold.
  - mingus88 4mo ago
    That’s really beside the point. It doesn’t matter what the 9th circuit or any other court says. Our country is no longer a country of laws. Laws are only as good as they are enforced. The SCOTUS, the DOJ, the FBI, and congress have openly abdicated any constitutional responsibility to provide checks and balances to reign in the abuses we see posted to HN every day.
    - Hnrobert42 4mo ago
      I believe they would all argue that they haven't. They would argue that the current administration is operating within the law towards ends supported, repeatedly, by their constituents. I disagree with them, but that isn't relevant.
      - mingus88 4mo ago
        When scotus rules that the president can break any law he sees fit, that argument is circular.
devindotcom 4mo ago
it's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.
  - filup 4mo ago
    >A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.
      - filup 4mo ago
        >If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles. I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.
downrightmike 4mo ago
The government may not purchase services for acts it is not allowed to do itself: Pinkerton Act.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  But the government is allowed to track people's license plates. There's nothing against the law for a police officer to stand at an intersection writing down all passing car's license plates with a pen and paper. Flock is the same thing, just much more cost efficient.
  - downrightmike 4mo ago
    This is not that
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      It is exactly that. These cameras are only recording cars on public roads (and sometimes e.g in the parking lot of Home Depot, but those areas are still in plain view).

reactordev 4mo ago

All flock cameras are privately owned, by flock. They install them at a charge per the jurisdiction that orders them and pays the subscription costs… those subscription fees allow Mr Local Law Abuser to lookup any license plate it has read, when, where, with a picture of the vehicle. https://deflock.org https://deflock.org You’d be surprised how many there are.

__MatrixMan__ 4mo ago
So when I put a bag over the camera, it's up to flock to remove it? I haven't stuck around to find out who shows up. Sometimes it takes a week or so, other times it's next day.
Manuel_D 4mo ago
The point is, some of flock's customers are private businesses. E.g. the Home Depot by me uses them. No amount of pressure by voters can take those cameras down.
- reactordev 4mo ago
  Shady part is, all of flock’s customers are businesses. Municipalities that use flock do so through a contracting company, it’s always once removed…

hilariously 4mo ago

https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
The case you linked isn't about the government filming people in public, though. Carpenter vs. US was a case about the government demanding private information about users' locations from cell service providers. By comparison, the 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal :https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/18-10341.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1... An officer doesn't need a warrant to sit at a cross section and write down license plate numbers. A device doing the same thing is also legal.
- hilariously 4mo ago
  Of course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward.
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded around the beach while disrobed, some of them bringing their children with them. People sailed by and photographed many of the nudists, and put their images online. Many alleged that must be a violation of some privacy law, but no, the law in Washington (and most, perhaps all, of the US) is quite clear: if you're in public, you can be filmed and photographed. If you don't want to be filmed nude, don't go walking around naked in public. Regardless, back to the topic at hand, the fact that Flock cameras a in public spaces does in fact mean that there's no requirement to get a warrant to use them.
    - jollyllama 4mo ago
      So what's the logical conclusion, that there will be a company with a drone following every individual in a public space at all times and that the government will pay for the data?

qmr 4mo ago

Wrong. See Carpenter v US.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  I feel like you haven't properly thought this through. Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? More generally you're confidently making wild extrapolations from the current very limited case law without regard for either its limitations or the general temperature that can be inferred from the full opinions.
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    > Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. It's an encrypted broadcast, not a public broadcast. This is why the police needed to ask the mobile service providers for this data. It is not public. > For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? The data is not broadly analogous. One is encrypted radio traffic. The other is unencrypted, and you can record it yourself with a pen, paper, and the Mk I eyeball. This is why the "plain view" doctrine applies. Again, the courts have already ruled on the use of ALPRs. The defense tried to use US vs Carpenter in US vs Yang, and the courts did not accept that argument that ALPRs are analogous to cell phone location data.

mingus88 4mo ago

The year is 2026 and the 4th amendment only means what the currently sitting justices say that it means, and the executive branch was literally given a pass to violate any law on the books that they want.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
The 9th circuit upheld that the police do not need warrants to operate and access data from license plate readers. The 9th Circuit isn't exactly a conservative stronghold.
- mingus88 4mo ago
  That’s really beside the point. It doesn’t matter what the 9th circuit or any other court says. Our country is no longer a country of laws. Laws are only as good as they are enforced. The SCOTUS, the DOJ, the FBI, and congress have openly abdicated any constitutional responsibility to provide checks and balances to reign in the abuses we see posted to HN every day.
  - Hnrobert42 4mo ago
    I believe they would all argue that they haven't. They would argue that the current administration is operating within the law towards ends supported, repeatedly, by their constituents. I disagree with them, but that isn't relevant.
    - mingus88 4mo ago
      When scotus rules that the president can break any law he sees fit, that argument is circular.

devindotcom 4mo ago

it's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.
- filup 4mo ago
  >A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.
    - filup 4mo ago
      >If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles. I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.

downrightmike 4mo ago

The government may not purchase services for acts it is not allowed to do itself: Pinkerton Act.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
But the government is allowed to track people's license plates. There's nothing against the law for a police officer to stand at an intersection writing down all passing car's license plates with a pen and paper. Flock is the same thing, just much more cost efficient.
- downrightmike 4mo ago
  This is not that
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    It is exactly that. These cameras are only recording cars on public roads (and sometimes e.g in the parking lot of Home Depot, but those areas are still in plain view).