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

US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#211

Post by tqi »

gandreani wrote: post #207

It's such a little thing but while reading the opinion I see that the court (Kagan in this case?) makes a factual claim it provides SOURCES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf "Modern cell phones, we observed a dozen years ago, are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley v.…

Tbh it feels quite performative, giving an air of rigor to the what often feels like post hoc reasoning and selective application of precidence and case law...

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#212

Post by tqi »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #203
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I see something weird going on outside my house, should I be allowed to take a picture of it? If I decide to take a picture of what's going on outside my house for no reason at all, should that also be allowed? if I decide to put a camera in my living room pointed out the window and record, should that be allowed? If I decide to run a business out of my home, does that change anything?

Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it. Some things that are not much of a problem at a small scale ("take a picture of a specific strange thing you see happening", "record one license plate of a specific car in relation to an incident") can become a problem at scale ("set up a video camera to constantly surveil the sidewalk and do facial r…

> Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it.

That doesn't seem accurate. Do you have an example of a law that prohibits filming on public property? Isn't the legality the whole premise of what those weirdo "first amendment auditors" on YouTube do?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#213

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gandreani wrote: post #207

It's such a little thing but while reading the opinion I see that the court (Kagan in this case?) makes a factual claim it provides SOURCES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf "Modern cell phones, we observed a dozen years ago, are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley v.…

Most SCOTUS opinions are rigorously sourced. They’re usually also well argued. The recent spate being an exception, in particular anything written by Alito.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#215

Post by tosief »

What is often overloked is how much location data leaks through photo metadata alone. Every photo taken with a phone contains GPS coordinates, timestamps, and device info in the EXIF data. People share photos publicly without realizing they are broadcasting their exact location history. At least with geofence warrants there is a legal process, with photo metadata it is just frely available to anyone who checks.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#216

Post by JoshTriplett »

tqi wrote: post #212
JoshTriplett wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it. Some things that are not much of a problem at a small scale ("take a picture of a specific strange thing you see happening", "record one license plate of a specific car in relation to an incident") can become a problem at scale ("set up a video camera to constantly surveil the sidewalk and do facial r…

> Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it. That doesn't seem accurate. Do you have an example of a law that prohibits filming on public property? Isn't the legality the whole premise of what those weirdo "first amendment auditors" on YouTube do?

Depends on your local law, but in many, many places you cannot legally record a conversation you aren't a party to, even in public. In the US, in many states, it's not permitted to record a conversation you are a party to if others have not consented. There are various reasonable exceptions that permit recordings (e.g. public events, press conferences, trials, governmental meetings, recording interactions with police). "Conversation between two people happening in public" is not typically a permitted exception for recording.

Note that in this comment I'm talking about audio recording, which typically has much stricter regulations than video recording. I think the same principles should apply to video, and in some jurisdictions they do. But in my comment, I was using the laws around audio recordings vs physical eavesdropping to make an analogy about the problem of pervasive surveillance.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#217

Post by s1artibartfast »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #139
brookst wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean that every single conviction from before the days of forensic evidence is necessarily invalid? If the argument is that forensic evidence decreases uncertainty, well, it certainly doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. Convicting anyone of anything is a slippery slope. The only way to be truly sure is to never do it, ever.

The case was a shooting. It seemed remarkable they had neither a gun, spent cartridge cases, blood, flesh, wounds, or anything in the way of physical evidence.

The question remains what they did have.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#218

Post by DiscourseFan »

jjk166 wrote: post #173
DiscourseFan wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn its almost as if juries exist to act as the sovereign so the violence which sustains the law can be vested in a general public that cannot be held accountable as a whole, similarly to how at least one member of a firing squad always has a blank.

Or perhaps the standards of evidence established for a pre-industrial society when eye-witness testimony was the best that could reasonably be achieved is not necessarily the optimal system for a digital society where everyone carries a high definition video camera in their pocket at all times.

Yes a high definition video camera that is slowly becoming indistinguishable (and has always been subject to tampering regardless) from an artificially generated version. We never have anything beyond judgement.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#219

Post by tqi »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #216
tqi wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it. That doesn't seem accurate. Do you have an example of a law that prohibits filming on public property? Isn't the legality the whole premise of what those weirdo "first amendment auditors" on YouTube do?

Depends on your local law, but in many, many places you cannot legally record a conversation you aren't a party to, even in public. In the US, in many states, it's not permitted to record a conversation you are a party to if others have not consented. There are various reasonable exceptions that permit recordings (e.g. public events, press conferences, trials, governmental meetings, recording interactions with police…

Afaik two party consent rules don't apply in public settings

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#220

Post by 8note »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #217
sidewndr46 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case was a shooting. It seemed remarkable they had neither a gun, spent cartridge cases, blood, flesh, wounds, or anything in the way of physical evidence.

The question remains what they did have.

presumably the local noble didnt like them, and the jury knew to follow along.

the south is also known for putting people in prison without even having a charge. just a guilty result

Post reply on HN