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

61–70 of 120 posts

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

#61

Post by giantg2 »

nulbyte wrote: post #26
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 .

Most people install cameras to monitor their own property. That is where reasonableness begins. If some installed a camera to surveil their neighbor on their own property, and that was the end of it, no one would know. But if as a result of that surveillance, one neighbor began harassing another, it would be problematic. This seems to be exactly what happened here, only the spying neighbor worked for the government a…

It depends on what you consider harassment since the article doesn't detail that. Even in your example, the filming isn't the problem, just the harassing. If your neighbor catches you on video committing a crime and turns you in based on that legally obtained video, there's no legal issue with that. The question here is should the government be held to stricter rules? The current test for whether something violates 4th amendment rights is if there wasa reasonable expectation of privacy. If your neighbor can legally video you, then that's pretty plainly demonstrated that you do not have the expectation of privacy. That's what this is really all about.

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

#62

Post by brightball »

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…

Is there anything stopping me from pointing a laser at the lens in response?

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

#63

Post by rolph »

rayiner wrote: post #45
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…

> 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?

invasion of privacy; endangering an officer

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

#64

Post by daviddever23box »

brightball wrote: post #62
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…

Is there anything stopping me from pointing a laser at the lens in response?

My thoughts exactly.

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

#65

Post by Zak »

brightball wrote: post #62
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…

Is there anything stopping me from pointing a laser at the lens in response?

If you know that the laser will damage the camera, probably (destruction of property). If you believe it will just prevent recording of anything but the laser light, probably not.

This is of course not intended as legal advice.

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

#66

Post by Clubber »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #57
Clubber wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>write law phrasing to your satisfaction

I wasn't trying to be combative, I just thought you had an idea that I hadn't thought of that would satisfy the privacy concerns with the freedom to photograph in public concerns.

>By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved.

So a lady gets arrested for photographing her child with your house in the background, she would now have to be interrogated, give a deposition under oath and go trial and go through all that?

Writing good laws is hard.

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

#67

Post by giantg2 »

blagie wrote: post #44
giantg2 wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

"Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you"

No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc.

"Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows"

No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws. It varies slightly by state, but you cannot record people in a private setting without permission. You can view the outside of a home from a public space, and even the inside if just with the naked eye.

"Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs)"

This one is interesting. Side-channel attacks are difficult to find case law about since they tend to be relatively new and involve other steps that are already criminal.

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

#68

Post by rolph »

codingdave wrote: post #25
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…

But most people staking out your home are somewhat obvious. A car parked across the street would be noticed, as would most permanent cameras. Getting permission to put something on a utility pole that is so small as to not be noticed is different, and whether or not that makes it illegal is exactly the question at hand. Think about it as if it was a person -- while it might be legal for me to stand on the sidewalk an…

where i live, any unnatural aid [eg binoculars] required or used to observe a private property creates an offense s privacy, as well if the point of focus is a bathroom, bedroom, or changing area, the offense is sexual voyuerism

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

#69

Post by giantg2 »

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…

Whichever party owns/maintains the poles can usually grant access to additonal parties if they see fit, including private citizens, other companies, the government, etc.

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

#70

Post by giantg2 »

gumby wrote: post #32
scott_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> police could just buy the data legally. Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?

Your position is logical, but unfortunately there is by now a large body of precedent saying that that gaping loophole is fine. So for example police can’t track your movement without a warrant, but they can buy that info from the phone companies. This could be fixed very simply by a law. The chances of such a law being passed are sadly extremely low.

"but they can buy that info from the phone companies"

Actually, they are starting to crack down on some of that with the recent SCOTUS case on cell location tracking. I forget the case name, but that was within the last 4 or so years.

Post reply on HN