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

The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#11

Post by kelnos »

mannanj wrote: post #3

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. 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…

In California, at least, if you are a resident of the state, you are legally required to register cars garaged in California with the California DMV. (It's actually a little ambiguous in an annoying way; even if you have a car that's garaged out of state, simply bringing it to CA for a weekend and driving it around can potentially trigger the CA registration requirement, again, assuming you are a CA resident.)

I'd be surprised if most other states don't have similar vehicle laws.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#12

Post by jmward01 »

twoodfin wrote: post #4

To 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…

This court has had little respect for precedent so maybe an argument here is more about the fact that rulings like this one may become more likely.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#13

Post by estearum »

twoodfin wrote: post #10
kelnos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)?

In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default.

This is the relevant bit:

In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements,” 585 U. S., at 310. The Court reasoned that CSLI provides a “detailed” and “encyclopedic” portrait of a person’s whereabouts, id., at 309, and, with that, “an intimate window into a person’s life,” id., at 311. Because people “compulsively carry” their cell phones “all the time,” the Court explained, a cell phone “tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner,” and thus “faithfully follows” him not only through “public thoroughfares [but] into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales.”

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#14

Post by AnimalMuppet »

twoodfin wrote: post #10
kelnos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that's quite as clear as you say it is. It could be "his" as in "about the person" rather than "belonging to the person".

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#15

Post by twoodfin »

estearum wrote: post #13
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individ…

Chatrie was about Google’s personal location tracking feature in Android, not about carrier tower records.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#16

Post by estearum »

twoodfin wrote: post #15
estearum wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individ…

Chatrie was about Google’s personal location tracking feature in Android, not about carrier tower records.

Which is also irrelevant

There's nothing special about any particular technology at all. The question is whether people have an option to generate the data for a third party (Google, Flock, or cell tower operators) and then the sensitivity of that resulting data.

Carpenter is pretty simple: If you by virtue of existing in the modern world produce a bunch of super sensitive data that third parties now have, then those third parties aren't allowed to just give the government that data.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#17

Post by mannanj »

afavour wrote: post #5
mannanj wrote: post #3

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. 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?

Tax advantages are not tax evasion. Otherwise, why bother with doing anything that is tax advantaged if when anyone calls it tax evasion or accuses someone of a crime the accused just give up and takes guilt (assumption of guilt over innocence) paying whatever is asked?

Insurance is a bit tricky though I've heard it's simple. Most companies don't ask or inquire about where the cars registered, and neither do repair shops or parts of the claim process inquire into this. If you're uncomfortable with this, you can DYOR and check what happened for claims if a driver who's personally insured is driving a vehicle registered under an LLC/company. I think it isn't true that just because a vehicle is registered by a company, it cannot be used for personal purposes or that insurance companies would make claims more difficult (though check yourself and I'm happy to know what you find)

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#18

Post by stickfigure »

estearum wrote: post #13
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individ…

This question seems preposterous on its face. If you walk around in public wearing a t-shirt with text on it, there's a reasonable expectation that people will read it. Specifically because it reflects light.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#19

Post by dundarious »

twoodfin wrote: post #4

To 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…

Yes, while I'm not a fan of fully networked, recorded, ubiquitous license plate tracking, it is quite different than the cell phone.

License plate number is a registered identifier mandated to be fully plainly visible, with that identifier tied to a registered individual; compared to cell phone which has identifiers, sure, but they're not registered to an individual necessarily, and not mandated to be plainly visible, rather only "visible" as a means of service provision.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#20

Post by twoodfin »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #14
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that's quite as clear as you say it is. It could be "his" as in "about the person" rather than "belonging to the person".

The Fourth Amendment covers exclusively “their persons, houses, papers, and effects” so it has to be one of those.
Post reply on HN