3 ms·
The difference is that your example involves physically stopping and searching people. This is not the case with Flock, which records images in public. The gov
by Manuel_D 29d ago
The difference is that your example involves physically stopping and searching people. This is not the case with Flock, which records images in public.
The government does not and never did require any warrant or justification to record people in public spaces. Not just the government, but normal people too: you can whip out four phone and start recording people in public any time you want.
- mypalmike 29d agoRecording equipment didn’t exist when the constitution was written.
- Manuel_D 29d agoThe Supreme Court has set precedence that video recordings of public spaces fall under the plain view doctrine: police don't need a warrant or probable cause to record things in public view.
- text0404 29d agoSure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment.
- Manuel_D 29d agoNo? Which Supreme Court decision decided that persisting video recorded in public is a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
- deleted 29d ago[deleted]
- text0404 29d agoChatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself. Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead and record all you want, but when law enforcement decides to use that data, they have to get a warrant.
- Manuel_D 29d agoThat case didn't cover public-facing cameras, that was about the government demanding telecoms hand over geolocation data on their users. The government was demanding that mobile providers hand over private data, akin to asking Google for your gmail contents. This is far removed from a camera set up in a public space.
- text0404 29d agoChatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space.
- Manuel_D 29d agoIt didn't just reveal Chatrie's movements, it revealed to movements of everyone in the geofenced area. And more importantly, it revealed movements even in private not just in public. Again, this is far removed from a camera in a public space.
- text0404 29d agoChatrie was not about the dragnet capturing people in private spaces. It established that LE acquisition and aggregation of location information can constitute a fourth amendment search even when the observations are made in public.
- 29d ago
- text0404 29d agoThe government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment.
- Manuel_D 29d agoThe government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.
- text0404 29d agoThe government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.
- Manuel_D 29d agoWhether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house.
- text0404 29d agoBut they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.
- 29d ago
- gothbytes 29d agoCool, then the Flock data should just be public and accessible to everyone since there's no expectation of privacy in public. If not, why not?
- Manuel_D 29d agoThere's nothing stopping you from setting up a webcam pointed out your window. If you want to set up your own public-facing ALPR cameras, there's nothing stopping you.
- gothbytes 29d agoCan I put cameras up on every street corner and on every traffic light? Doesn't answer my question anyways. I'm asking if the government via a third party can have this ability, would you have any objection to the entirety of the public from having this data and camera access? I'm assuming not since the people who advocate for this technology see nothing wrong with it. If you do have a problem with public access to these cameras and tracking software, then it would be hypocritical.
- Manuel_D 29d agoIf you owned property, or otherwise got permission from the property owners to put cameras there, then yes.