3 ms·

Not sure I agree. The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. That's potentially a huge differ

by kelnos 3mo ago

Not sure I agree. The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. That's potentially a huge difference, certainly, but I don't think it makes the negative outcome here quite as likely as you think. Otherwise, it's the same: Google's database is a third-party-owned record of people's movements in public, and Flock's database is a third-party-owned record of people's movement in public. The ruling in Chatrie had nothing to do with an expectation of privacy, or lack thereof. It was about the dragnet nature of the surveillance. And in that respect, I don't see any meaningful difference between Flock's and Google's systems.

twoodfin 3mo ago
The very first holding of the majority opinion by Kagan: Held: Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Note the possessive “his”. Crucial to the case, this was held to be the individual’s data, not the third-party’s.
- estearum 3mo ago
  Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements,” 585 U. S., at 310. The Court reasoned that CSLI provides a “detailed” and “encyclopedic” portrait of a person’s whereabouts, id., at 309, and, with that, “an intimate window into a person’s life,” id., at 311. Because people “compulsively carry” their cell phones “all the time,” the Court explained, a cell phone “tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner,” and thus “faithfully follows” him not only through “public thoroughfares [but] into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales.”
  - twoodfin 3mo ago
    Chatrie was about Google’s personal location tracking feature in Android, not about carrier tower records.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Which is also irrelevant There's nothing special about any particular technology at all. The question is whether people have an option to generate the data for a third party (Google, Flock, or cell tower operators) and then the sensitivity of that resulting data. Carpenter is pretty simple: If you by virtue of existing in the modern world produce a bunch of super sensitive data that third parties now have, then those third parties aren't allowed to just give the government that data.
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        You mean to tell me I can’t just find a loophole to get around the intent of the law? But what about my profits??!?
  - stickfigure 3mo ago
    This question seems preposterous on its face. If you walk around in public wearing a t-shirt with text on it, there's a reasonable expectation that people will read it. Specifically because it reflects light.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.
      - stickfigure 3mo ago
        No, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.
- AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
  I'm not sure that's quite as clear as you say it is. It could be "his" as in "about the person" rather than "belonging to the person".
  - twoodfin 3mo ago
    The Fourth Amendment covers exclusively “their persons, houses, papers, and effects” so it has to be one of those.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      This is not true. For example, this would allow the government to wiretap anyone without warrant. Katz v United States would be the place to start your research.
smalltorch 3mo ago
>The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. Isn't there some level of expectation if for your whole life these mass networks didn't exist and you could go to the grocery store without being locked in database prison?

by kelnos 3mo ago

twoodfin 3mo ago

The very first holding of the majority opinion by Kagan: Held: Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Note the possessive “his”. Crucial to the case, this was held to be the individual’s data, not the third-party’s.

estearum 3mo ago
Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements,” 585 U. S., at 310. The Court reasoned that CSLI provides a “detailed” and “encyclopedic” portrait of a person’s whereabouts, id., at 309, and, with that, “an intimate window into a person’s life,” id., at 311. Because people “compulsively carry” their cell phones “all the time,” the Court explained, a cell phone “tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner,” and thus “faithfully follows” him not only through “public thoroughfares [but] into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales.”
- twoodfin 3mo ago
  Chatrie was about Google’s personal location tracking feature in Android, not about carrier tower records.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Which is also irrelevant There's nothing special about any particular technology at all. The question is whether people have an option to generate the data for a third party (Google, Flock, or cell tower operators) and then the sensitivity of that resulting data. Carpenter is pretty simple: If you by virtue of existing in the modern world produce a bunch of super sensitive data that third parties now have, then those third parties aren't allowed to just give the government that data.
    - iamnothere 3mo ago
      You mean to tell me I can’t just find a loophole to get around the intent of the law? But what about my profits??!?
- stickfigure 3mo ago
  This question seems preposterous on its face. If you walk around in public wearing a t-shirt with text on it, there's a reasonable expectation that people will read it. Specifically because it reflects light.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.
    - stickfigure 3mo ago
      No, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.
AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
I'm not sure that's quite as clear as you say it is. It could be "his" as in "about the person" rather than "belonging to the person".
- twoodfin 3mo ago
  The Fourth Amendment covers exclusively “their persons, houses, papers, and effects” so it has to be one of those.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    This is not true. For example, this would allow the government to wiretap anyone without warrant. Katz v United States would be the place to start your research.

smalltorch 3mo ago

>The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. Isn't there some level of expectation if for your whole life these mass networks didn't exist and you could go to the grocery store without being locked in database prison?