3 ms·

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI feat

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment.

Manuel_D 27d ago
ALPRs were always fed into databases, even back during the 90s. The whole point of ALPRs is to automate the task of reading license plates.
- text0404 27d ago
  They weren't connected to nationwide databases which automatically record, store, and aggregate individuals' movements. Not constitutionally equivalent.
  - Manuel_D 27d ago
    Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?
    - text0404 27d ago
      They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search.
      - Manuel_D 27d ago
        No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all.
        text0404 27d ago
        The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter. Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data.
        Manuel_D 27d ago
        It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements. Your phone's GPS data doesn't just track where you drive on public roads, it also tracks you walking around your private property. > The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). Sure, doesn't eliminate Fourth Amendment protections: the police can't just search your car because it's in public. But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data. Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. That's what distinguishes Flock from the other cases you mentioned.
        text0404 27d ago
        Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'" > But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. I'm not saying either of these things. The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data". I don't care who collects the data (Flock, or Axon, or Google, or whoever): if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue.
  - deleted 27d ago
    [deleted]

Manuel_D 27d ago

ALPRs were always fed into databases, even back during the 90s. The whole point of ALPRs is to automate the task of reading license plates.

text0404 27d ago
They weren't connected to nationwide databases which automatically record, store, and aggregate individuals' movements. Not constitutionally equivalent.
- Manuel_D 27d ago
  Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?
  - text0404 27d ago
    They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search.
    - Manuel_D 27d ago
      No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all.
      - text0404 27d ago
        The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter. Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data.
        Manuel_D 27d ago
        It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements. Your phone's GPS data doesn't just track where you drive on public roads, it also tracks you walking around your private property. > The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). Sure, doesn't eliminate Fourth Amendment protections: the police can't just search your car because it's in public. But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data. Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. That's what distinguishes Flock from the other cases you mentioned.
        text0404 27d ago
        Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'" > But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces. > Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search. I'm not saying either of these things. The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data". I don't care who collects the data (Flock, or Axon, or Google, or whoever): if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue.
- deleted 27d ago
  [deleted]