3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoNo, 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.
- estearum 3mo agoNope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
- stickfigure 3mo agoI'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.
- iamnothere 3mo agoNot if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.
- stickfigure 3mo agoOf course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.
- iamnothere 3mo agoSure, well, multiple Courts have ruled several times in different ways against warrantless mass surveillance, so unless you’re planning to stack the Court, my money is on them remaining consistent here.
- 0x1d7 3mo agoBut will this put a damper in ALPRs from reading cellular/bluetooth radios? https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soon-track-phones-wearables-infotainment-and-even-your-pets https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...
- estearum 3mo agoNope. United States v Jones already answered this question.
- FireBeyond 3mo agoThe FCC might be surprised to learn that they do not, in fact, regulate cellphones.
- lightedman 3mo ago"I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals"" A vehicle is literally considered an extension of your body, and this has been held up many times, starting with Carroll in 1929. More recently, the 9th circuit put forth a ruling vacating a man's conviction because a cop merely touched the vehicle, thus triggering a warrantless search complaint. There's a lot of case law that goes against what you're thinking.
- mr_luc 3mo agoAbove was a quote from Carpenter, and the Court seems to have called out that the completeness of the record meant it recorded them, 'not only in public thoroughfares', but also private homes and doctor's office and so forth. It does seem like that's an element, then -- this is not to say that it's sufficient for anything, since obviously a sufficiently good record of where one goes on public thoroughfares would fail the same test ('reliably reveals that so-and-so went to visit a specialist doctor, divorce attorney, and brothel all on the same day')
- estearum 3mo agoIt's the completeness of the record that matters, not the publicness of it.
- mr_luc 3mo agoYes that feels like a good characterization. Which, I would say, does seem a lot less black-and-white than the cell phone example, and anyone who thinks it's all settled now might be in for a surprise.