3 ms·

IANAL disclaimer. Police do need a warrant to place a GPS device on your vehicle. Data continuity is a function of data point frequency [0]. If all public spa

by croon 16d ago

IANAL disclaimer. Police do need a warrant to place a GPS device on your vehicle. Data continuity is a function of data point frequency [0]. If all public space (and some participating private space) is monitored, the practical difference between a GPS device and a retroactive dragnet system disappears. You are correct that police do not require a warrant to follow someone around in public, but these systems aren't that, and in practice much closer to the GPS tracking, which does require a warrant. It's unclear without trying this further in court which this should qualify as. IMO: If the system has seen me exit the public space outside my home, or work, or someone elses home, or a store, or whevever, the system knows where I am at all points in time, like a GPS, with very little exception. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect

Manuel_D 16d ago
There's a big difference between saying "Flock and other ALPR tech is illegal" And "Flock and other ALPR tech is legal. But it's my personal prediction that some future Supreme Court decision will make them illegal."
- croon 15d ago
  Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. For reference, US v. Jones was a 9-0 in the SC, in favor of Jones, though bipartisan split on the reasoning, which might be what carries over to any case that gets tried regarding this tech.
  - Manuel_D 15d ago
    > Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. It's legal until your expected Supreme Court decision lands. This is just another way of saying "Flock tech is legal, but if the Supreme Court rules the way I want then it will become illegal." > For reference, US v. Jones was a 9-0 in the SC, in favor of Jones, though bipartisan split on the reasoning, which might be what carries over to any case that gets tried regarding this tech "Might be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. And again, until the court actually gives that ruling, Flock is legal.
    - croon 12d ago
      > "Might be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. And again, until the court actually gives that ruling, Flock is legal. There's a difference between de facto legal and de jure legal. If the SC strikes it down, it was never legal, ie void ab initio.
      - Manuel_D 12d ago
        You realize that "de jure" is literally lation for "by law"? Until some court reinterprets the law, it is legal. E.g. segregated school were until the Brown v. Board of Education landed and made it illegal.

by croon 16d ago

Manuel_D 16d ago

There's a big difference between saying "Flock and other ALPR tech is illegal" And "Flock and other ALPR tech is legal. But it's my personal prediction that some future Supreme Court decision will make them illegal."

croon 15d ago
Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. For reference, US v. Jones was a 9-0 in the SC, in favor of Jones, though bipartisan split on the reasoning, which might be what carries over to any case that gets tried regarding this tech.
- Manuel_D 15d ago
  > Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. It's legal until your expected Supreme Court decision lands. This is just another way of saying "Flock tech is legal, but if the Supreme Court rules the way I want then it will become illegal." > For reference, US v. Jones was a 9-0 in the SC, in favor of Jones, though bipartisan split on the reasoning, which might be what carries over to any case that gets tried regarding this tech "Might be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. And again, until the court actually gives that ruling, Flock is legal.
  - croon 12d ago
    > "Might be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. And again, until the court actually gives that ruling, Flock is legal. There's a difference between de facto legal and de jure legal. If the SC strikes it down, it was never legal, ie void ab initio.
    - Manuel_D 12d ago
      You realize that "de jure" is literally lation for "by law"? Until some court reinterprets the law, it is legal. E.g. segregated school were until the Brown v. Board of Education landed and made it illegal.