It's interesting to note that -conversely- German laws on camera surveillance are very strict!
I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.
SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
41–50 of 120 posts
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith.
As for lack of political agenda, the Supreme Court may be more polarized than it has ever been (at least in my lifetime), but it's worth looking in context: it's one of three branches.
As has always been the case in US history, it still has much less of a political agenda than either of the other two branches.
- If you're on the left, who seems most reasonable: Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, or the most anti-left member of the Supreme Court?
- If you're on the right, you can do the same exercise with Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the most anti-right member of the Supreme Court.
I have read many Supreme Court rulings I strongly disagreed with and which didn't reflect my values, but I've never read any which felt stupid, corrupt, or done in bad faith. That contrasts with legislative and executive completely.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#43I 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 abou…
The difference is the police have extraordinary rights to search and seize your property with established probable cause, and the ability to violently detain, even kill you, if they observe anything that might give suspicion of a crime. Your neighbor can’t use footage they acquire for any purpose without your permission of you in your private life without running afoul privacy laws. But the crucial aspect is the extraordinary powers and rights the police are conferred to basically destroy your life on suspicion alone.
They did specify at a high level several cases and that at least in some charges were filed in the article, at least I read it that way:
“a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar — a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids — to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.”
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#44SCOTUS 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 inte…
Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can:
* Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you
* Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs)
* Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows
... and so on.
Those were impossible 100 years ago, were expensive a few decades ago (outside of the means of my neighbors), are within the means of many individuals today, and will probably be very cheap in a few more decades years. That makes a world of difference.
I don't think my neighbor should be allowed to do any of those. I'd like my privacy.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#45I 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 abou…
I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee. If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted…
> an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee
Conviction for what?
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely declining to hear the appeal IS agreeing with the ruling, at least de-facto? Doing so because they are busy or don't want to interfere etc doesn't change that. At best they have retained the option to hear an identical case later, but SCOTUS always has that right anyway...
No, it's not an agreement. Handing down a SCOTUS opinion is the most powerful thing they can do, and all lower courts are bound by it. But maintaining silence permits lower courts to continue operating each on its own best judgment. SCOTUS defers to the specialized authority of lower/local bodies all the time, saying, "We trust you have a better and more intimate perspective and will come to a good decision." That's…
I feel like I am missing your point:
* If the lower courts agree and SCOTUS leaves them to it, they are defacto supporting what the lower courts agreed on no? "We agree because we agree" and "We agree because we don't know but accept whatever you decided" are the same thing...
* If the lower courts do NOT agree (like this case), then by declining the case SCOTUS is... agreeing that the same law means different things in different places with their jurisdiction. Which seems even bad for a whole other set of additional reasons.
Still, here we are I guess. There are plenty of other issues that other parts of government refuse to address (and I would argue that there accept the default state of) so why not SCOTUS too...
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 inte…
Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can: * Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you * Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs) * Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows ... and so on. Those were impossible 100 years ago, were expensive a few decades ago (outside of the means of my neighbors), are wit…
All of those would be considered an invasion of your privacy. The general rule of thumb is that you have no expectation of privacy for anything that is done on your yard but outside your house, but within the walls, you do have an expectation of privacy. Technology that allows people to peep on you from outside your house doesn't change that, anymore than the introduction of windows to a house didn't change the expectation of privacy.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#48I 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 abou…
I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee. If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted…
If the utility company gave you explicit permission to put it there you'd be fine though. Which is almost certainly what happened here yeah?
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good.
>Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good. The legal problem is: do you now arrest a parent taking a picture of their child on a public street and your house happens to be in the frame? Of course not, but how do you legally differentiate the two?
More subtle differentiations than that are made by law and handled routinely by courts. Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified. Things like intent and effect can be considered and judgement applied in court by a person whose title reflects their responsibility to do exactly that.
Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee. If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted…
> an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee Conviction for what?
trespass? theft? illegal use of...? they can get very clever when it comes to being able to say you broke the law. it seems it is near impossible to go the entire day without breaking a law of some sort as if it were by design.
If you have power lines with communication utility services running lower on the poles, those communication lines are paying rent to string their lines on those poles. So they could come at you with failure to pay rent, breach of contract (can there be a breach if you didn't sign), some sort of something along those lines would allow for at least a civil suit from the pole's owner.