5 ms·

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from poin

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

estearum 3mo ago
Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.
- stickfigure 3mo ago
  This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B. Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand. As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different. Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?
deathanatos 3mo ago
All government regulation still has to be balanced against whether it intrudes or not on the rights of the People. The government can regulate vehicles, including ensuring drivers have met whatever requirements a license might require — nobody is arguing against that. But Flock cameras do not help advance any reasonable state interest in that area; their sole purpose AFAICT is for law enforcement, and in a way that intrudes on any basic expectations of privacy.
Terr_ 3mo ago
Justifying some control does not justify all control. Voting is a "privilege" too [0] but does that mean any state government should be recording an exact log of your ballot-choices? Surely not. [0] It should be a far stronger right than what it is right now, but that's separate big debate.
nateb2022 3mo ago
> Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not. If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  > The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either. Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?
  - nateb2022 3mo ago
    > Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public with the indiscriminate collection of photos of all vehicles. The former is a constitutional, isolated observation. The latter is a search, since in toto it reveals personal information. > If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so? May the police pay a third party to execute warrantless searches?
    - nateb2022 3mo ago
      In the 1760s there was something called a writ of assistance, which allowed British officers to search any location for smuggled goods without specific suspicion. The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Fourth Amendment in direct response to these abusive general warrants, protecting against the exact kind of arbitrary power that placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (John Adams) Moreso, Adams maintains: Writs in their nature are temporary things. When the purposes for which they are issued are answered, they exist no more; but these live forever; no one can be called to account... But these prove no more than what I before observed, that special writs may be granted on oath and probable suspicion. The act of 7 and 8 William III that the officers of the plantations shall have the same powers, etc., is confined to this sense; that an officer should show probable ground; should take his oath of it; should do this before a magistrate; and that such magistrate, if he think proper, should issue a special warrant to a constable to search the places. As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." An action revealing all this is ipso facto a search; and Flock performs this search in the very absence of a specific warrant that Adams so vehemently opposed.
1shooner 3mo ago
SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a GPS car tracker is a 4th amendment search.
- stickfigure 3mo ago
  US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant because it trespasses on private property (the vehicle). On the other hand, law enforcement can follow your car with a drone, helicopter, or other vehicle without a warrant. Are cameras more like a helicopter or more like a GPS tracker? The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    No no no, not true. US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass was required, and deferred to Katz v United States analysis. That analysis was used shortly after in Carpenter v United States to answer that the government cannot use third party data that people do not voluntarily give up (like cell tower data) given the completeness of the record. Fundamentally the issue presented is: "At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.”" Obviously "input name, find location at all hours of any day over the past X years" is not the degree of privacy against government that existed when the 4th Amendment was adopted.
    - stickfigure 3mo ago
      You said "no" then vigorously agreed with me. My point was that, contrary to the grandparent, US v Jones does not resolve this question.
      - estearum 3mo ago
        Somebody reading your comment would come away with the idea that the government is allowed to track cars with GPS so long as they do not trespass in order to do it. This is not true. The unanimous opinion did not rule on that, but also the 5-0 concurring opinion found specifically and explicitly that even if there were no trespass at all, it still would be a 4th Amendment violation.
nkrisc 3mo ago
That may be true, but I fail to see how that justifies broad, warrantless surveillance. Could you elaborate?
SAI_Peregrinus 3mo ago
Flock also has facial recognition. There are Flock cameras on public walking paths.

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

estearum 3mo ago

Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.

stickfigure 3mo ago
This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B. Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand. As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different. Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?

deathanatos 3mo ago

All government regulation still has to be balanced against whether it intrudes or not on the rights of the People. The government can regulate vehicles, including ensuring drivers have met whatever requirements a license might require — nobody is arguing against that. But Flock cameras do not help advance any reasonable state interest in that area; their sole purpose AFAICT is for law enforcement, and in a way that intrudes on any basic expectations of privacy.

Terr_ 3mo ago

Justifying some control does not justify all control. Voting is a "privilege" too [0] but does that mean any state government should be recording an exact log of your ballot-choices? Surely not. [0] It should be a far stronger right than what it is right now, but that's separate big debate.

nateb2022 3mo ago

> Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not. If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

skinfaxi 3mo ago
> The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either. Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?
- nateb2022 3mo ago
  > Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public with the indiscriminate collection of photos of all vehicles. The former is a constitutional, isolated observation. The latter is a search, since in toto it reveals personal information. > If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so? May the police pay a third party to execute warrantless searches?
  - nateb2022 3mo ago
    In the 1760s there was something called a writ of assistance, which allowed British officers to search any location for smuggled goods without specific suspicion. The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Fourth Amendment in direct response to these abusive general warrants, protecting against the exact kind of arbitrary power that placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (John Adams) Moreso, Adams maintains: Writs in their nature are temporary things. When the purposes for which they are issued are answered, they exist no more; but these live forever; no one can be called to account... But these prove no more than what I before observed, that special writs may be granted on oath and probable suspicion. The act of 7 and 8 William III that the officers of the plantations shall have the same powers, etc., is confined to this sense; that an officer should show probable ground; should take his oath of it; should do this before a magistrate; and that such magistrate, if he think proper, should issue a special warrant to a constable to search the places. As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." An action revealing all this is ipso facto a search; and Flock performs this search in the very absence of a specific warrant that Adams so vehemently opposed.

1shooner 3mo ago

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a GPS car tracker is a 4th amendment search.

stickfigure 3mo ago
US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant because it trespasses on private property (the vehicle). On the other hand, law enforcement can follow your car with a drone, helicopter, or other vehicle without a warrant. Are cameras more like a helicopter or more like a GPS tracker? The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet.
- estearum 3mo ago
  No no no, not true. US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass was required, and deferred to Katz v United States analysis. That analysis was used shortly after in Carpenter v United States to answer that the government cannot use third party data that people do not voluntarily give up (like cell tower data) given the completeness of the record. Fundamentally the issue presented is: "At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.”" Obviously "input name, find location at all hours of any day over the past X years" is not the degree of privacy against government that existed when the 4th Amendment was adopted.
  - stickfigure 3mo ago
    You said "no" then vigorously agreed with me. My point was that, contrary to the grandparent, US v Jones does not resolve this question.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Somebody reading your comment would come away with the idea that the government is allowed to track cars with GPS so long as they do not trespass in order to do it. This is not true. The unanimous opinion did not rule on that, but also the 5-0 concurring opinion found specifically and explicitly that even if there were no trespass at all, it still would be a 4th Amendment violation.

nkrisc 3mo ago

That may be true, but I fail to see how that justifies broad, warrantless surveillance. Could you elaborate?

SAI_Peregrinus 3mo ago

Flock also has facial recognition. There are Flock cameras on public walking paths.