License plate reader searches should require a warrant • Hacker News Board

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#391

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

Cider9986 wrote: post #187

A warrant is better than no warrant, but: A warrant requirement is not a reasonable bandaid to consider allowing mass spying. There should be no mass spying by default. A warrant requirement makes sense for something like the locations of customers on cellular networks, because, although it should be improved, it's been built into the tech. When you make the optional choice to create mass spying, safeguards do not ma…

This should be up to the citizens. If you're living in Oakland with rampant theft and illegal dumping, it's a reasonable trade-off to allow tracking down perpetrators with a warrant. Most people would not agree to allowing police to do arbitrary searches of that data without a warrant.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#392

Post by JK-Swizzle » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #374

JK-Swizzle wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the sentiment of those around me about public recordings (in this case it was street photography), I would not be surprised if there was a push soon to ban all public recordings. At least, the sharing or usage of those recordings. It seems many people feel it limits what I would consider "freedom of impermanence", or the concept that as an ordinary individual nearly every action or mistake you make will no…

The most private people I know would not ban all public recordings or to share all public recordings. They would ban with some exceptions to share recordings of people without their consent. Some would ban to keep recordings without consent. And they would not ban this if street photographers or so respected other people. > But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning, He would have been th…

For those examples, yes, I was meaning the recording rather than the event. I find a pretty or emotional visual is better to describe moments like that than just words.

And no, I did not discuss this with the people in the images. I only share these things in person so I am not too concerned with it spreading. On occasion I will offer a copy for the person (often the time I realize I have a good photo is weeks after the fact).

Do you have countries in mind? Photography laws fascinate me, so I’d love to read more. I only really know about the US.

For the examples I gave, I used a situation with implied consent but not explicit (a person performing in public), a situation with neither implied nor explicit (a layperson in public), and a situation that may not need consent (a non human subject with people visible). It would be interesting to know if each of those would be handled differently.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#393

Post by estearum » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #390

estearum wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, and the controlling opinion remained ambivalent as to the question that fluidstack (or whatever) believes is so concretely obvious. So the controlling opinion said: "we won't answer this question." The concurring opinion (signed by 5) said "fluidstack is wrong."

There were two concurring opinions in that case: One was signed by Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. The other--the one whose quotes you cite--was Justice Sotomayor's alone. There can't be a "concurring opinion" signed by five Justices. An opinion signed by five Justices is a majority, and would constitute the Opinion of the Court. I think that the most we can say right now is that although the "plain view…

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part.

What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point:

> society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.

So no, I'm not arguing from shaky ground. And no, ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#394

Post by otterley » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #393

otterley wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two concurring opinions in that case: One was signed by Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. The other--the one whose quotes you cite--was Justice Sotomayor's alone. There can't be a "concurring opinion" signed by five Justices. An opinion signed by five Justices is a majority, and would constitute the Opinion of the Court. I think that the most we can say right now is that although the "plain view…

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four…

> What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: [...]

I agree with you that the two concurrences are aligned about this. Interestingly, it did not make it into the majority opinion, even though there was a majority on this point. It probably wasn't included because it wasn't needed in order to reverse the lower court's decision; the physical violation was enough to merit a unanimous decision.

> ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion.

No, it isn't. It is possible, and better, to disagree with someone while remaining courteous--even on subjects you have strong feelings about.

From our Guidelines:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#395

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 13, 2026, 10:20 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #386

jameshart wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is why so many outright fraudulent ads get shown by them. In the same industry we have Meta using AI to generate and display ads that even the advertiser hasn’t vetted. > vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. A small scale business like… a cable tv company? They certainly historicall…

> YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is a true statement that is very different from my claim that they could . > A small scale business like… a cable tv company? No, cable is a very different business model. If youtube only allowed business accounts worth millions of dollars it would get halfway there. And it would be the end of "you"tube.

[deleted]

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#396

Post by fluidcruft » Fri, Aug 14, 2026, 12:55 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #393

otterley wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two concurring opinions in that case: One was signed by Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. The other--the one whose quotes you cite--was Justice Sotomayor's alone. There can't be a "concurring opinion" signed by five Justices. An opinion signed by five Justices is a majority, and would constitute the Opinion of the Court. I think that the most we can say right now is that although the "plain view…

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four…

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#397

Post by estearum » Fri, Aug 14, 2026, 1:13 AM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #396

estearum wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four…

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!")

A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#398

Post by fluidcruft » Fri, Aug 14, 2026, 1:47 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #397

fluidcruft wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amo…

Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#399

Post by otterley » Fri, Aug 14, 2026, 2:05 AM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #398

estearum wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amo…

Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.

The Supreme Court has already held in three cases that air surveillance, even from an altitude as low as 400 feet, does not constitute a search: California v. Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley (1989).

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#400

Post by otterley » Fri, Aug 14, 2026, 2:06 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #397

fluidcruft wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amo…

fluidcruft is not wrong about this particular point. And even if they were, while you may disagree passionately with the state of the law today, that doesn't give you the right to be a dick to them about their analysis. Knock it off.