5 ms·

Spying on the American public shouldn't be cheap or efficient. We shouldn't abandon our freedom to make the fearful feel better.

fluidcruft 2mo ago
People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?
- autoexec 2mo ago
  > People either have privacy in public or they do not Thankfully, the law isn't as overly simplistic and black and white as that. It'd be very stupid if it were. We have the ability maintain a general principal like "there's no expectation to privacy in public" and still prohibit certain things that are deemed harmful, like taking upskirt photos of people while they are in public spaces.
  - fluidcruft 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - autoexec 2mo ago
      > Nobody is talking about cops or flock cameras taking upskirt photos. Just as we have the ability to pass laws prohibiting that specific harmful use of cameras while in public spaces, we have the ability to do something about the harmful uses of police and flock cameras while in public. The conversation is about the harms of mass surveillance and the exceptions necessary to protect the American public.
- unethical_ban 2mo ago
  >I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads Hello, I'm here. Practically, we do have privacy in public pre-AI. We weren't entitled to complete anonymity, but the ability to track every single person at all times was impossible. Now that AI and sensors are making it possible, people are saying "No, I don't want that to be the norm".
- estearum 2mo ago
  This is actually not how the law works. Nice try though!
  - fluidcruft 2mo ago
    Convincing argument vs plain view doctrine.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      Maybe spend some more time digging into the case law amigo
    - unethical_ban 2mo ago
      If you like omnipresent surveillance, just say it.
      - fluidcruft 2mo ago
        I don't have to like it to know it's perfectly legal.
        estearum 2mo ago
        You should go read the United States v Jones concurrence and try to figure out why five Justices disagree with you. Have some curiosity about the world! You can also read Carpenter v United States for some background thoughts on why it's not as simple as Justice Fluidcruft condescendingly imagines it to be. In fact if you're really curious, you could even look at the state cases that are bubbling their way up like Commonwealth v McCarthy. If only everyone were as confident and simplistic as you, we could avoid all these darn cases :(
        fluidcruft 2mo ago
        idk how installing a GPS tracker is even remotely comparable to taking photographs of publicly visible license plates in plain view in public but please do go on refusing to engage facts.
- DANmode 2mo ago
  I know whole States of them.
- throwway120385 2mo ago
  Great! Can you send me the link to your personal bodycam so I can watch you at all times while you're out of the house?

fluidcruft 2mo ago

People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?

autoexec 2mo ago
> People either have privacy in public or they do not Thankfully, the law isn't as overly simplistic and black and white as that. It'd be very stupid if it were. We have the ability maintain a general principal like "there's no expectation to privacy in public" and still prohibit certain things that are deemed harmful, like taking upskirt photos of people while they are in public spaces.
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - autoexec 2mo ago
    > Nobody is talking about cops or flock cameras taking upskirt photos. Just as we have the ability to pass laws prohibiting that specific harmful use of cameras while in public spaces, we have the ability to do something about the harmful uses of police and flock cameras while in public. The conversation is about the harms of mass surveillance and the exceptions necessary to protect the American public.
unethical_ban 2mo ago
>I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads Hello, I'm here. Practically, we do have privacy in public pre-AI. We weren't entitled to complete anonymity, but the ability to track every single person at all times was impossible. Now that AI and sensors are making it possible, people are saying "No, I don't want that to be the norm".
estearum 2mo ago
This is actually not how the law works. Nice try though!
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  Convincing argument vs plain view doctrine.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Maybe spend some more time digging into the case law amigo
  - unethical_ban 2mo ago
    If you like omnipresent surveillance, just say it.
    - fluidcruft 2mo ago
      I don't have to like it to know it's perfectly legal.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        You should go read the United States v Jones concurrence and try to figure out why five Justices disagree with you. Have some curiosity about the world! You can also read Carpenter v United States for some background thoughts on why it's not as simple as Justice Fluidcruft condescendingly imagines it to be. In fact if you're really curious, you could even look at the state cases that are bubbling their way up like Commonwealth v McCarthy. If only everyone were as confident and simplistic as you, we could avoid all these darn cases :(
        fluidcruft 2mo ago
        idk how installing a GPS tracker is even remotely comparable to taking photographs of publicly visible license plates in plain view in public but please do go on refusing to engage facts.
DANmode 2mo ago
I know whole States of them.
throwway120385 2mo ago
Great! Can you send me the link to your personal bodycam so I can watch you at all times while you're out of the house?