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

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#12

Post by Avshalom »

>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real.

My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#15

Post by Manuel_D »

qmr wrote: post #8
Manuel_D wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 privately owned, too.

Wrong. See Carpenter v US.

That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#16

Post by Manuel_D »

hilariously wrote: post #7
Manuel_D wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 privately owned, too.

https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.

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 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal :https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1...

An officer doesn't need a warrant to sit at a cross section and write down license plate numbers. A device doing the same thing is also legal.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#17

Post by apothegm »

Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real. My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

The AI slop in that quote sure is real.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#19

Post by hilariously »

Manuel_D wrote: post #16
hilariously wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.

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 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1... An officer doesn't need…

Of course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward.
Post reply on HN