Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.
SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
11–20 of 120 posts
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#12Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.
A while back, there was a leak of some sort whereby many of these pole cameras in Massachusetts became accessible to the public. While this is anecdotal, it seemed to me at the time that the cameras were more than capable of peering through windows, as though someone were standing on the sidewalk with binoculars. The cameras themselves were concealed so they looked like utility equipment.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#13Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.
I think there is a significant disconnect between a simple, consistent "theoretical" view on camera privacy and actual human sensibilities: I am very confident that humans in general are absolutely not comfortable with being the target of video recording; this became very evident with the whole google glass fiasco, when people wearing those were sometimes straight up banned from restaurants for making people uncomfortable- while surveillance cameras are less "targeted", less visible and at least provide marginal utility, it seems very clear to me that most humans consider it not appropriate to "video record" in every place that you could be "watched" by a bystander (and even just looking at people can drift into offensiveness- consider younger attractive persons veing creepily stared at).
I personally believe that cameras in public places should not be blanket banned, but that individuals should have a viable avenue to get them removed if they care to expend some (legal?) effort.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#14I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices. The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing…
They are judges not politicians. Other than that, fair enough
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#15I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices. The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing…
They dont have to be mounted by cops, do they? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBMkg8G5tQ
In most places there are limits to who can put things on poles. For example, where I live it’s the local municipality, utilities, telephone companies, and cable companies. That’s it.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#16I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes.
There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#17SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently. They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with. And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side. Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example: - The…
The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
They dont have to be mounted by cops, do they? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBMkg8G5tQ
In most places there are limits to who can put things on poles. For example, where I live it’s the local municipality, utilities, telephone companies, and cable companies. That’s it.
Usually those are the parties required to have access to them. Whichever party owns/maintains the poles can usually grant access to additonal parties if they see fit.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#19Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.
The idea is that the length and amount of surveillance is invasive.
You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week.
But if your neighbors take turns sitting on their porch, watching every move you make - if you can never come and go without them watching - and they’re taking notes and pictures of every visitor, every package, etc. - that would feel invasive for many people.
That’s the argument. Do you have a expectation of privacy in public? No. Do you have an expectation of constant surveillance? Also no.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#20SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently. They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with. And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
"They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with."
There's also a possibility that they don't disagree with this. My understanding is the current test is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, a neighbor could film your house from across the street, so there is no expectation of privacy since anyone can do what the ATF did here.
So they would only take this case if they are interested in changing the standard test. Maybe they will in a future case, or maybe they are fine with the current test.