3 ms·

>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveil

>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide". > I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" These are the same Constitutional question. In order to determine what cars are stolen, all cars must be inspected. If all cars are inspected, there is a reasonable case that the 4th amendment is being violated: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[0] > But I also think people on HN have a real problem in convincing themselves about the obvious righteousness of their anti-surveillance arguments. See above. 0 - https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/

tptacek 2mo ago
They're not remotely the same Constitutional question. The people asking this aren't saying "I'm fine with being profiled because I've got nothing to hide unlike the people driving stolen cars". They're just as upset about abuses of these systems as you are (though: some of them think these cameras are no more intrusive than cell tower tracking). They just see an upside to the system that privacy advocates refuse to recognize. I get that this sounds like standard-issue message board rhetoric where I'm Mary Sue'ing normies to make my points for me, but I don't agree with my neighbors about this stuff, and you'll probably have to take my word for it that I'm not making any of this up.
- AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
  >>>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide". >>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" >> These are the same Constitutional question. > They're not remotely the same Constitutional question. They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment: ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How does ubiquitous surveillance used as evidence whenever possible not violate this section of the Constitution, if not others? And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned? They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.
  - tptacek 2mo ago
    Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! The whole premise of the LEADS hotlist is warrantless interdiction of stolen cars.
    - AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
      > Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! By this logic, there is no need for "day-to-day policing" to have warrants for: - phone taps - SMS messages - GPS history - email - banking information - justified arrests - court approved searches The result of the position you advocate is known as a Police State[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
      - tptacek 2mo ago
        If you come up with an argument for this that's somehow particular to ALPR cameras and not an indictment of all policing since the 20th century, I'll likely respond.
        AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
        I probably can't. I concede, you win, and please do not feel obliged to respond. I wish you well in your path in life.
    - doc_ick 2mo ago
      How many cops that we know of are on the hook for abusing flock access? Last I checked was around 50.
    - AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
      > Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! Just because I feel bad for taking advantage of the above statement, here is a snippet from "Warrants in U.S. Law: The Ultimate Guide": Imagine your home is your castle, and the U.S. Constitution has built a protective wall around it called the Fourth Amendment. This wall protects your right to privacy and security from government intrusion. Now, imagine a police officer wants to enter your castle. They can't just knock down the gate; they need a special key. A warrant is that key. It's not just any key, though. It's a special permission slip, signed by a neutral judge (a magistrate), that says the government has a very good, specific reason—called Probable Cause—to believe that evidence of a crime is inside your home, or that you have committed a crime. This document acts as a crucial check on government power, ensuring that law enforcement can't search your property or arrest you on a whim. It's a fundamental safeguard that forces the government to justify its actions before it invades your privacy, protecting every citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures.[0] Judicial warrants are the cornerstone of U.S. criminal law. Policing enforces U.S. criminal law. 0 - https://uslawexplained.com/warrant_law https://uslawexplained.com/warrant_law
- csa 2mo ago
  > Mary Sue'ing normies Thank you for this gift. This combo has entered my lexicon.

tptacek 2mo ago

They're not remotely the same Constitutional question. The people asking this aren't saying "I'm fine with being profiled because I've got nothing to hide unlike the people driving stolen cars". They're just as upset about abuses of these systems as you are (though: some of them think these cameras are no more intrusive than cell tower tracking). They just see an upside to the system that privacy advocates refuse to recognize. I get that this sounds like standard-issue message board rhetoric where I'm Mary Sue'ing normies to make my points for me, but I don't agree with my neighbors about this stuff, and you'll probably have to take my word for it that I'm not making any of this up.

AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
>>>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide". >>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" >> These are the same Constitutional question. > They're not remotely the same Constitutional question. They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment: ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How does ubiquitous surveillance used as evidence whenever possible not violate this section of the Constitution, if not others? And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned? They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.
- tptacek 2mo ago
  Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! The whole premise of the LEADS hotlist is warrantless interdiction of stolen cars.
  - AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
    > Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! By this logic, there is no need for "day-to-day policing" to have warrants for: - phone taps - SMS messages - GPS history - email - banking information - justified arrests - court approved searches The result of the position you advocate is known as a Police State[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
    - tptacek 2mo ago
      If you come up with an argument for this that's somehow particular to ALPR cameras and not an indictment of all policing since the 20th century, I'll likely respond.
      - AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
        I probably can't. I concede, you win, and please do not feel obliged to respond. I wish you well in your path in life.
  - doc_ick 2mo ago
    How many cops that we know of are on the hook for abusing flock access? Last I checked was around 50.
  - AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
    > Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants! Just because I feel bad for taking advantage of the above statement, here is a snippet from "Warrants in U.S. Law: The Ultimate Guide": Imagine your home is your castle, and the U.S. Constitution has built a protective wall around it called the Fourth Amendment. This wall protects your right to privacy and security from government intrusion. Now, imagine a police officer wants to enter your castle. They can't just knock down the gate; they need a special key. A warrant is that key. It's not just any key, though. It's a special permission slip, signed by a neutral judge (a magistrate), that says the government has a very good, specific reason—called Probable Cause—to believe that evidence of a crime is inside your home, or that you have committed a crime. This document acts as a crucial check on government power, ensuring that law enforcement can't search your property or arrest you on a whim. It's a fundamental safeguard that forces the government to justify its actions before it invades your privacy, protecting every citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures.[0] Judicial warrants are the cornerstone of U.S. criminal law. Policing enforces U.S. criminal law. 0 - https://uslawexplained.com/warrant_law https://uslawexplained.com/warrant_law
csa 2mo ago
> Mary Sue'ing normies Thank you for this gift. This combo has entered my lexicon.