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

31–40 of 105 posts

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

#31

Post by estearum »

josefritzishere wrote: post #2

It 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.

This is pretty much how SCOTUS approaches the 4th Amendment, yes.

It's basically a continuous rebalancing of private vs government power, and new technologies cause more rebalancing.

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

#32

Post by mannanj »

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…

I hear you bringing up 2 separate actions that can trigger a registration requirement.

1) Garaging a vehicle, for x days or more.

2) Driving a vehicle, for x days or more.

Have you looked into what the specifics are, and how they are triggered?

Poking some holes at this:

- Are you on the hook to register vehicles you don't own for actions (1) or (2)?

Consider two examples:

(a) you rent a vehicle,

(b) you drive or choose to house a friends' vehicle.

From what you've stated, logically, anytime you rent a vehicle or operate or house a friends', you now are asked to register it.

Do you think this is accurate? And if so, do you think it would hold in court of law?

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

#33

Post by iamnothere »

estearum wrote: post #16
twoodfin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You mean to tell me I can’t just find a loophole to get around the intent of the law? But what about my profits??!?

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

#34

Post by stickfigure »

estearum wrote: post #29
stickfigure wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections.

Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

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

#35

Post by iamnothere »

stickfigure wrote: post #34
estearum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

alistairSH wrote: post #26
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…

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by smalltorch »

kelnos wrote: post #8
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…

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 only difference I see is the idea that there's no expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.

Isn't there some level of expectation if for your whole life these mass networks didn't exist and you could go to the grocery store without being locked in database prison?

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

#38

Post by stickfigure »

estearum wrote: post #24
twoodfin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

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

#39

Post by stackskipton »

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…

>not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be.

Depends on the state, in my former state, Virginia, it is tax evasion. This is not unique to Virginia BTW, Georgia has similar laws. By law in VA, all cars that are garaged in state for longer than 90 days must pay the car tax. Only reason Montana LLC registered cars get away from it is most counties find out who must pay the tax from Virginia DMV so these cars are missed.

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

#40

Post by stickfigure »

iamnothere wrote: post #35
stickfigure wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.

Of course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.
Post reply on HN