The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#2It is self-evident that a very narrow examination of a very narrow data set is different than the 24/7 unlimited surveillance of everything. The law should support this basic proposition no matter where they decide the dividing line is. Flock is on the wrong side of an open air prison. I hope they lose.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#3Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be.
You can still pay your use tax and be a good citizen, and in fact, its probably a better demonstration of your duties as a citizen to protect the right to privacy and say to your local governments that have a history of abusing and selling vehicle registration data to 3rd parties that you do not tolerate that.
Happy to share more, the sites for Montana registration can be shady but the dirt legal one is great.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#4To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case.
But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie’s impact.
In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party-owned recordings of public movement.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#5Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. You can still pay your use tax and be a good citizen, and in fact, its probably a better demonstration of your duties as a citizen to protect the right to privacy and say to your local governments that have a history of abusing and selli…
> Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be.
I mean, it’s both, right? You’re definitely getting a tax advantage compared to a lot of areas of the country. And how is insurance going to work?
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#6To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…
But Chatrie found that the geofence was unconstitutional because of the wide dragnet which included people not suspected of crimes, not because those people were in private spaces:
> The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."
The analogue with Flock is pretty clear then:
> Just as important as the holding is the reasoning: the Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the search was fine because it only pulled a narrow, time-limited slice of a much larger dataset. Once the Fourth Amendment applies, the majority reasoned, it doesn't matter how small a bite investigators took out of an all-encompassing database.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#7Interestingly I was watching a body cam where an off duty cop road raged punched a driver.
During the investigation the investigating officer had become worried that the assailant would use police resources to further track and harass the victim.
Luckily the guy was driving a company vehicle that did not track to his address.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#8To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…
Not sure I agree. The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. That's potentially a huge difference, certainly, but I don't think it makes the negative outcome here quite as likely as you think.
Otherwise, it's the same: Google's database is a third-party-owned record of people's movements in public, and Flock's database is a third-party-owned record of people's movement in public.
The ruling in Chatrie had nothing to do with an expectation of privacy, or lack thereof. It was about the dragnet nature of the surveillance. And in that respect, I don't see any meaningful difference between Flock's and Google's systems.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#9To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…
But Chatrie found that the geofence was unconstitutional because of the wide dragnet which included people not suspected of crimes, not because those people were in private spaces: > The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information." Th…
As I understand the ruling, the Court decided these location records were akin to a diary or a personal photograph.
That’s what triggered the essential element of an expectation of privacy, from which the fact of a search was established.
Totally absent in this case, as far as I can tell.
Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire
#10To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…
Not sure I agree. The only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads. That's potentially a huge difference, certainly, but I don't think it makes the negative outcome here quite as likely as you think. Otherwise, it's the same: Google's database is a third-party-owned record of people's movements in public, and Flock's database is a third-party-owned record of p…
The very first holding of the majority opinion by Kagan:
Held: Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.
Note the possessive “his”. Crucial to the case, this was held to be the individual’s data, not the third-party’s.