3 ms·

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

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?
      - Manuel_D 4mo ago
        The logical conclusion is that the US brings itself in line with the rest of the developed world, and realizes video cameras are useful for solving crime. Flying drones are not required, stationary cameras are more than enough outside of specific scenarios like active pursuit.
      - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
        Considering how desperately that user is responding to every comment on this post, it seems they have a vested interest in playing blind for Flock, which makes me think they are paid by Flock.
        Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Lol, I should be getting paid. But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people.
        normalaccess 4mo ago
        And this is how freedom dies, not by the letter of the law, but by the spirit.
        filup 4mo ago
        Manual D, the flock system is still very new. Why are you confident a private companies monetization of public whereabouts will stay legal? There hasent really been any precedent set on this. And the system is wildly unpopular In the public eye?

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?
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      The logical conclusion is that the US brings itself in line with the rest of the developed world, and realizes video cameras are useful for solving crime. Flying drones are not required, stationary cameras are more than enough outside of specific scenarios like active pursuit.
    - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
      Considering how desperately that user is responding to every comment on this post, it seems they have a vested interest in playing blind for Flock, which makes me think they are paid by Flock.
      - Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Lol, I should be getting paid. But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people.
        normalaccess 4mo ago
        And this is how freedom dies, not by the letter of the law, but by the spirit.
        filup 4mo ago
        Manual D, the flock system is still very new. Why are you confident a private companies monetization of public whereabouts will stay legal? There hasent really been any precedent set on this. And the system is wildly unpopular In the public eye?