Manuel_D

5 ms·

31.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
You don't need a warrant to record people in public. You keep throwing around the term "surveil" as though this is a singular activity. Do the police need a warrant to search your house or car? Yes. Do they need a warrant to
32.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect?
33.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
It 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 p
34.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
That 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
35.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
Whether 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
36.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
A checkpoint is a type of military installation. Specifically an installation with the purpose of monitoring and controlling traffic traveling through the checkpoint.
37.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
There'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.
38.
by Manuel_D 29d 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.
39.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
And?
40.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
The 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 circumven
41.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
No? Which Supreme Court decision decided that persisting video recorded in public is a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
42.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
The ones making the laws are your elected officials. If you want a city to pass a law prohibiting changing the traffic light timings, then go campaign for a candidate that has that on their platform.
43.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
The 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.
44.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
If anything that makes surveillance even less noteworthy. Is it really surprising that a military installation has surveillance?
45.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
Drivers have a right not to have their car searched without probable cause. But being photographed in public is not a search.
46.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
Except it is? If the traffic light timings are controlled by law then they can't be manipulated in that way.
47.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
But Flock isn't searching anybody. You keep calling it a dragnet, or an illegal search, but the courts have repeatedly held that recording images in public needs no warrant or probable case.
48.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
The Constitution does not prohibit government (or anyone for that matter) from recording people in public spaces. ALPRs have been in widespread use since the 90s, I am continuously puzzled where people get the idea that this is new technolo
49.
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 peo
50.
by Manuel_D 29d ago
> It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution At least in the US, they can't. This is already the law. But what so m
51.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
The Z3 lacked conditional branching. The hack to make it technically a universal Turing machine is to execute all possible branches of a program and discard the undesired branch results, so the end result is the same as if it had genuine br
52.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
And what about pointing out the fact that Flock's activities are legal, contrary to what people claim, is trolling?
53.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
It was a very forgiving and accessible MMO, one that really felt like playing diablo 2 on a persistent multiplayer world. That, and warcraft 3 was released not too long, and the Frozen Throne expansion the year before. So the setting and l
54.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
Pointing out the incorrect assumption that Flock is doing something illegal is not sealioning. There's a reason why none of the replies actually point to the law that Flock is supposedly breaking: because there isn't one.
55.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
You assume that some future Supreme Court case will rule that governments' use of Flock violated the Fifth Amendment, but at present Flock is violating now laws. Like I said in the my original reply: nothing is good to be legalized bec
56.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
You're calling me daft yet you couldn't be bothered to answer the question. What is going the be legalized, as the above commenter wrote? What law is Flock breaking presently? Like it or not recording and photographing people in p
57.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
> they will absolutely be legalized on some party line vote in the middle of the night. What would be legalized? You realize that recording people in public is already legal, right? I'm puzzled where people are getting the idea that
58.
by Manuel_D 1mo ago
So you don't understand that briandear's comment is a question?
59.
by Manuel_D 2mo ago
That's a near verbatim quote of the comment.
60.
by Manuel_D 2mo ago
Again, this glosses over the scale of grid storage. If the US decides to provision a day's worth of electricity storage then, that amounts to 12 years worth of global battery production.

More ›