3 ms·

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

estearum 2mo ago
Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    The Supreme Court has already held in three cases that air surveillance, even from an altitude as low as 400 feet, does not constitute a search: California v. Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley (1989).
    - fluidcruft 2mo ago
      How does that help your argument?
      - otterley 2mo ago
        You may be confusing me with estearum. I'm just adding data to the discussion. I did say earlier, though: > although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet. The aerial surveillance cases are applicable examples of that point.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      None of these is relevant to the analysis here: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. Altitude has nothing to do with it. Completeness and cost of picture does.
      - otterley 2mo ago
        You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today.
        estearum 2mo ago
        No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.
        otterley 2mo ago
        That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not. I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Who said anything about private property? I'm talking about following someone on public streets. The drone hovers directly over the sidewalk in front of your house. When you step onto the sidewalk, it follows you directly to the front of your workplace. As you go up to the third floor, it hovers up and observes you through the window. As you descend and come back out to the street, it hovers overhead until you arrive back to your home. It's all plain view doctrine. Not sure what could be ambiguous about this.
- otterley 2mo ago
  fluidcruft is not wrong about this particular point. And even if they were, while you may disagree passionately with the state of the law today, that doesn't give you the right to be a dick to them about their analysis. Knock it off.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    1. Yes, they are wrong. For example, Dobbs sat downstream of generations of people perpetuating the idea that the law already bans abortion (under murder statutes) and that the Constitution already prevents the federal government from regulating this area. Regardless of whether that's true or not, what is plainly true is that whenever possible, people prefer to frame their preferred policies as already existing in statute and case law. People saying "Hmm yes, it does" is obviously beneficial to their cause. People saying "Hmm no, it doesn't" are harmful to their cause. There are cases where it's legitimately ambiguous as to where the law lands and this is one of those areas, but fluidcruft is insisting that it's not. To the extent it's not ambiguous, recent case law, the overarching history of the 4th Amendment literally since its ratification, and common sense all point in the same direction: the government cannot arbitrarily monitor everyone's movements (even in public) at near-zero cost with zero warrant. 2. There's nothing dickish in my prior comment whatsoever.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      > It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case yet on the legality of warrantless end-to-end surveillance technology, and he’s right that the Constitution has no explicit privacy right. Certainly no lawyer I know would advise their client otherwise, and as an attorney myself, I wouldn’t do it, either. > There's nothing dickish in my prior comment When someone tells you you’re being dickish, pay attention and take it seriously. They are giving you valuable feedback about how you are coming across. Even if you don’t intend to be that way, and don’t think you are, others can still see it. You need to take that into consideration. In this case, saying that a wannabe dictator would use the same argument was pretty dickish, particularly in the context of everything you’ve already said to them. It’s well past the time to lower the temperature of this discussion. Don’t keep it on simmer.

estearum 2mo ago

Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.

fluidcruft 2mo ago
Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.
- otterley 2mo ago
  The Supreme Court has already held in three cases that air surveillance, even from an altitude as low as 400 feet, does not constitute a search: California v. Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley (1989).
  - fluidcruft 2mo ago
    How does that help your argument?
    - otterley 2mo ago
      You may be confusing me with estearum. I'm just adding data to the discussion. I did say earlier, though: > although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet. The aerial surveillance cases are applicable examples of that point.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    None of these is relevant to the analysis here: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. Altitude has nothing to do with it. Completeness and cost of picture does.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.
        otterley 2mo ago
        That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not. I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.
- estearum 2mo ago
  Who said anything about private property? I'm talking about following someone on public streets. The drone hovers directly over the sidewalk in front of your house. When you step onto the sidewalk, it follows you directly to the front of your workplace. As you go up to the third floor, it hovers up and observes you through the window. As you descend and come back out to the street, it hovers overhead until you arrive back to your home. It's all plain view doctrine. Not sure what could be ambiguous about this.
otterley 2mo ago
fluidcruft is not wrong about this particular point. And even if they were, while you may disagree passionately with the state of the law today, that doesn't give you the right to be a dick to them about their analysis. Knock it off.
- estearum 2mo ago
  1. Yes, they are wrong. For example, Dobbs sat downstream of generations of people perpetuating the idea that the law already bans abortion (under murder statutes) and that the Constitution already prevents the federal government from regulating this area. Regardless of whether that's true or not, what is plainly true is that whenever possible, people prefer to frame their preferred policies as already existing in statute and case law. People saying "Hmm yes, it does" is obviously beneficial to their cause. People saying "Hmm no, it doesn't" are harmful to their cause. There are cases where it's legitimately ambiguous as to where the law lands and this is one of those areas, but fluidcruft is insisting that it's not. To the extent it's not ambiguous, recent case law, the overarching history of the 4th Amendment literally since its ratification, and common sense all point in the same direction: the government cannot arbitrarily monitor everyone's movements (even in public) at near-zero cost with zero warrant. 2. There's nothing dickish in my prior comment whatsoever.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    > It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case yet on the legality of warrantless end-to-end surveillance technology, and he’s right that the Constitution has no explicit privacy right. Certainly no lawyer I know would advise their client otherwise, and as an attorney myself, I wouldn’t do it, either. > There's nothing dickish in my prior comment When someone tells you you’re being dickish, pay attention and take it seriously. They are giving you valuable feedback about how you are coming across. Even if you don’t intend to be that way, and don’t think you are, others can still see it. You need to take that into consideration. In this case, saying that a wannabe dictator would use the same argument was pretty dickish, particularly in the context of everything you’ve already said to them. It’s well past the time to lower the temperature of this discussion. Don’t keep it on simmer.