3 ms·

Convincing argument vs plain view doctrine.

by fluidcruft 2mo ago

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.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        Ah, someone didn't read the opinions. Shame. Confidence and ignorance live another day!
      - unethical_ban 2mo ago
        Both allow cops to track people as they travel without a warrant.
        fluidcruft 2mo ago
        People don't have any expectation that the license plate on their car cannot be seen by law enforcement. People do not expect their phones to be feeding their locations to cops and they do not expect things hidden on them unknowingly to exist. But it really stretches believability that people have no idea that cops check license plate. Or that cops communicate with each other about license plates to coordinate searches or that cops have databases of license plates. Heck there's a whole trope in media that you need to swap license plates to hide from cops. Next you're going to be telling us we need a warrant for an Amber alert.
        estearum 2mo ago
        You should read SCOTUS opinions instead of forming beliefs based on media tropes, duh.
        fluidcruft 2mo ago
        > you should go away until you agree with me so that I don't have to engage in discussion I didn't ask you to reply to any of my comments.
        otterley 2mo ago
        I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions. It’s not very persuasive otherwise. These cases are highly nuanced. Also, you’re being kind of a dick. Knock it off.
        estearum 2mo ago
        > I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions... These cases are highly nuanced. That nuance is why it's worth reading the entire opinion. Anyway here you go: > GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. See, e.g., People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433, 441–442, 909 N.E.2d 1195, 1199 (2009) (“Disclosed in [GPS] data . . . will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on”). The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F. 3d, at 1124 (opinion of Kozinski, C. J.). And because GPS monitoring is cheap in comparison to conventional surveillance techniques and, by design, proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: “limited police resources and community hostility.” Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 426 (2004). > Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F.3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring). > I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 35, n. 2; ante, at 11 (leaving open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance “through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”). I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent “a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948).[1]* ======= Now the question is: is this characterization true only of GPS monitoring? Or is it also true of a sufficiently broad network for ALPRs? The answer of course is the latter. Here, Sotomayor + 4 other Justices are saying it's actually not as simple as Fluidcruft's "you're in public so plain view doctrine answers it"

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.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      Ah, someone didn't read the opinions. Shame. Confidence and ignorance live another day!
    - unethical_ban 2mo ago
      Both allow cops to track people as they travel without a warrant.
      - fluidcruft 2mo ago
        People don't have any expectation that the license plate on their car cannot be seen by law enforcement. People do not expect their phones to be feeding their locations to cops and they do not expect things hidden on them unknowingly to exist. But it really stretches believability that people have no idea that cops check license plate. Or that cops communicate with each other about license plates to coordinate searches or that cops have databases of license plates. Heck there's a whole trope in media that you need to swap license plates to hide from cops. Next you're going to be telling us we need a warrant for an Amber alert.
        estearum 2mo ago
        You should read SCOTUS opinions instead of forming beliefs based on media tropes, duh.
        fluidcruft 2mo ago
        > you should go away until you agree with me so that I don't have to engage in discussion I didn't ask you to reply to any of my comments.
        otterley 2mo ago
        I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions. It’s not very persuasive otherwise. These cases are highly nuanced. Also, you’re being kind of a dick. Knock it off.
        estearum 2mo ago
        > I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions... These cases are highly nuanced. That nuance is why it's worth reading the entire opinion. Anyway here you go: > GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. See, e.g., People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433, 441–442, 909 N.E.2d 1195, 1199 (2009) (“Disclosed in [GPS] data . . . will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on”). The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F. 3d, at 1124 (opinion of Kozinski, C. J.). And because GPS monitoring is cheap in comparison to conventional surveillance techniques and, by design, proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: “limited police resources and community hostility.” Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 426 (2004). > Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F.3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring). > I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 35, n. 2; ante, at 11 (leaving open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance “through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”). I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent “a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948).[1]* ======= Now the question is: is this characterization true only of GPS monitoring? Or is it also true of a sufficiently broad network for ALPRs? The answer of course is the latter. Here, Sotomayor + 4 other Justices are saying it's actually not as simple as Fluidcruft's "you're in public so plain view doctrine answers it"