The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by estearum » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #18

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…

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.

This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.

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

#22

Post by maxlybbert » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

I really hope this doesn’t turn into yet another case of judges looking at irrelevant facts when making decisions.

The fourth amendment does not say “private conversations,” so when police started tapping phones, the courts focused on whether the phone tap physically intruded on somebody’s house, papers, or effects. Police apparently could tap phone conversations by watching reflections on a nearby window, and the fourth amendment didn’t apply because there was no physical intrusion. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test come from Katz v. US ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/ ) where the Supreme Court realized that whether there was a physical intrusion was irrelevant.

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

#23

Post by lokar » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #11

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…

And the CHP has a website where you can report violations.

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

#24

Post by estearum » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #9

text0404 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they argued these records are akin to a record of the person's travel history.

> As Google puts it, and no one seriously disputes, Location History serves as a “diary” or map “of a person’s travels.”

"Diary" is a red herring here. They're referring to a location log, just like what Flock produces.

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

#25

Post by flenserboy » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #12

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.

they have little respect for precedent which they agree is wrong, which is a far better standard than letting terrible decisions stand because tradition or because popular.

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

#26

Post by alistairSH » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

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…

Is Flock really 3rd party? Yes, they're a private entity, but they largely owe their existence to government contracts. They maintain their database on behalf of various governments. Their primary sales pitch is to law enforcement. It feels like something completely different than Alphabet's or Meta's databases of person/user data.

I do agree that Flock is also not the same as the database of cell phone location data that Verizon or Apple or whoever else might maintain.

It's somewhere in the middle, IMO. At least to my non-lawyer brain.

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

#27

Post by stickfigure » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #21

stickfigure wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.

No, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.

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

#28

Post by estearum » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #20

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not true.

For example, this would allow the government to wiretap anyone without warrant.

Katz v United States would be the place to start your research.

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

#29

Post by estearum » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:26 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #27

estearum wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.

No, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.

Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.

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

#30

Post by NDlurker » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 6:26 PM UTC

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?

I live in North Dakota and the cost of maintaining a Montana LLC would be more than my yearly registration fee. Something I started doing is getting new plates every year so historical data of my movement based on plate number only goes back a year.