Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#51

Post by Tangurena2 »

blagie wrote: post #8
chmod600 wrote: post #5

SCOTUS 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…

For state versus state cases, the US Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear their cases.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#52

Post by Clubber »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #49
Clubber wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

So tell me how you would write it where it's actually effective and a person surveilling you can't hack it, like having a child or dog, or any exception with them in the frame all the time. A person can call themselves "press," and be constitutionally correct; press can't be defined and credentialed by the state and be "free." I can't think of a way personally, but I'm open to ideas.

>Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified.

Yes, but the more vague the more prone to state abuse and the more likely to be struck down.

Freedoms carry burdens, but the freedoms outweighs the burdens in nearly all cases.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#53

Post by lisper »

giantg2 wrote: post #16

I 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…

> there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view

There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole.

Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#54

Post by giraffe_lady »

blagie wrote: post #42
pmoriarty wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

[flagged]

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#55

Post by VancouverMan »

nulbyte wrote: post #24
giantg2 wrote: post #16

I 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…

> I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government.

Who owns the utility?

In Canada, for example, it's common for the utility companies responsible for electricity transmission and/or distribution to be owned by provincial or municipal governments.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#56

Post by Workaccount2 »

VancouverMan wrote: post #55
nulbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier 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…

> I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. Who owns the utility? In Canada, for example, it's common for the utility companies responsible for electricity transmission and/or distribution to be owned by provincial or municipal governments.

Utilities in the US are private entities with special regulations around them.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#57

Post by giraffe_lady »

Clubber wrote: post #52
giraffe_lady wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So tell me how you would write it where it's actually effective and a person surveilling you can't hack it, like having a child or dog, or any exception with them in the frame all the time. A person can call themselves "press," and be constitutionally correct; press can't be defined and credentialed by the state and be "free." I can't think of a way personally, but I'm open to ideas. >Remember it's not (yet) an algor…

I'm not a lawyer or a legislator it's not my responsibility to write law phrasing to your satisfaction. This would be handled the same way other plausibly deniable things like fraud and harassment are handled. By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#59

Post by giantg2 »

jzb wrote: post #40
giantg2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." I mean, maybe that's the expectation/argument from the 19th century. Cameras have been around a long time and are increasing in popularity among the general population (Ring etc). It might feel invasive, but there's no reasonable expectation of privacy legally .

"but there's no reasonable expectation of privacy legally." Um. Isn't that what this case is trying to establish? It's unclear what the legal expectation is or isn't. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean it immediately follows that erodes a given right. The government can tap just about any call, but courts have restricted that substantially (at least in theory...). If you have not, I reco…

"Um. Isn't that what this case is trying to establish? It's unclear what the legal expectation is or isn't."

Not really. The general terms are quite settled that it is fine for a person to film stuff from a public area, even if they are able to see a private area. The question is about whether police can also do that or if the 4th amendment prohibits it. Based on the long standing decisions that you don't have an expectation of privacy of being filmed from a public location and that the reasonable expectation of privacy is all that prohibits a "search", then it's a pretty logical outcome. Unless, again, they want to change the longstanding test. So it would not be about establishing anything, but rather changing something.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#60

Post by [deleted] »

Clubber wrote: post #36
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #30

Earlier 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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN