Manuel_D

8 ms·

151.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
> We've had exactly one real test of that argument (Schmidt v Norfolk) that has yet to be make it to SCOTUS. The district court in that case ruled Carpenter didn't apply - but it was a district court whose opinion SCOTUS overru
152.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The 9th circuit upheld the use of automated license plate readers in US vs. Yang. The defense attempted to use Carpenter to argue against the legality of ALPR data, and failed: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/
153.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
What wasn't previously available? Automated license plate readers have been around since the 70s, and started being widely deployed in the 1990s as technology got cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_nu
154.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
And how are they building that dataset? By recording in public. Yes it is about recording in public.
155.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The ballots are timestamped to a degree fine-grained enough to narrow down the set of potential voters to just 50 people? Which state is this? I'm not finding any search results indicating that ballots are timestamped. In fact, some of
156.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
Who says the city's retention period would be smaller than Flock? Furthermore, do you realize that you're free to photograph people in public and sell those images, no permission required: https://en.wikipedia.org/
157.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observa
158.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The point is, some of flock's customers are private businesses. E.g. the Home Depot by me uses them. No amount of pressure by voters can take those cameras down.
159.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
In case you didn't read it, the 9th circuit upheld the use of Flock cameras. The precedence is as high as it gets, short of a supreme Court decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636421 You're being expo
160.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
But the government is allowed to track people's license plates. There's nothing against the law for a police officer to stand at an intersection writing down all passing car's license plates with a pen and paper. Flock is t
161.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would a
162.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
> Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. It's an encrypted broadcast, not a public broadcast. This is why the police needed to ask the mobile service providers for this data
163.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
> investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd
164.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
No? If someone broke into your car as stole your luggage, the surveillance camera might not directly capture the thief breaking into your car. But if the camera recorded someone entering the parking garage and then exiting the garage carryi
165.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The hopefully we'll be able to at least narrow down the list of suspects to the people who entered the bathroom around the time they the murder took place. Surveillance often doesn't directly capture crime on camera, but is rather
166.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
Yes, you are allowed to set up a camera, as long as you own the land you're putting the camera on or you have permission from the landowner. Again, I'm surprised by how many people don't realize that it's legal to film p
167.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The legality of automated license plate readers has gone all the way up to the United States Court of Appeals. That's the second highest court in the country, superseded only by the Supreme Court. This is as strong as precedent gets, s
168.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
Lol, I should be getting paid. But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people.
169.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
Right and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business. The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a p
170.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers d
171.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The logical conclusion is that the US brings itself in line with the rest of the developed world, and realizes video cameras are useful for solving crime. Flying drones are not required, stationary cameras are more than enough outside of sp
172.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The 9th circuit upheld that the police do not need warrants to operate and access data from license plate readers. The 9th Circuit isn't exactly a conservative stronghold.
173.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
In Seattle at least, the majority of homicide cases are solved with the assistance of surveillance cameras (though what % of said cameras are specifically Flock, I'm not sure): https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2026/0
174.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards
175.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The case you linked isn't about the government filming people in public, though. Carpenter vs. US was a case about the government demanding private information about users' locations from cell service providers. By comparison, the
176.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.
177.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
To the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citizens need authorization to film people in public. Many Flock cameras are also priv
178.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
What does the enrichment of uranium have to do with humans working in proximity? In both low-enriched land based plants and in marine nuclear power plants, the radioactive materials are contained in the pressure vessel and inner cooling loo
179.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The Navy uses highly enriched uranium for its reactors, something like 70-80% enrichment. This is a non starter for civilian use, on account of proliferation concerns. That, and the enrichment requirements drive up fuel costs.
180.
by Manuel_D 4mo ago
The value propositions of SMRs are logistics and re-use of existing infrastructure. The idea is that you could have easily transportable reactors that you can plop down in an existing coal plant, and then reuse the turbine, dynamo, etc. tha

More ›