3 ms·
> Please let us know how this violates the 4th. It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant. https://www.supremec
by ceejayoz 3mo ago
> Please let us know how this violates the 4th.
It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
- infecto 3mo agoMaybe similar trajectory but fundamentally Chatrie is about compelling stored data from a third party. I don’t believe there is any meaningful overlap between that and direct visual observation from police. Folks should argue it in court if so but I don’t see the link to 4th violations.
- ceejayoz 3mo agoChatrie has sections like this: > Second, Location History allows police to reconstruct “retrospective[ly],” and with no real effort, people’s comings and goings in any area, enabling “tireless and absolute surveillance” of any number of people in any number of places. A certain level of drone surveillance would seem likely to rise to this level of intrusion, and I think ALPR cameras already do.
- infecto 3mo agoAgree I wish the article focused more on the storage and availability of the data instead of the narrative they wrote. It’s in there but not the focus which imo is the issue. I think it’s great to have the drones as active response but like ALPR, it’s ripe for abuse after the fact. These systems can have great value but are ripe for abuse, I hope organizations catchup to build the proper guardrails.