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

Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 571 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#501

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #500
text0404 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself. Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead and record all you want, but when law enforcement decides to use that data, they have to get a warrant.

That case didn't cover public-facing cameras, that was about the government demanding telecoms hand over geolocation data on their users. The government was demanding that mobile providers hand over private data, akin to asking Google for your gmail contents. This is far removed from a camera set up in a public space.

Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#502

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #499
text0404 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.

Whether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house.

But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#503

Post by Manuel_D »

text0404 wrote: post #501
Manuel_D wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That case didn't cover public-facing cameras, that was about the government demanding telecoms hand over geolocation data on their users. The government was demanding that mobile providers hand over private data, akin to asking Google for your gmail contents. This is far removed from a camera set up in a public space.

Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space.

It didn't just reveal Chatrie's movements, it revealed to movements of everyone in the geofenced area. And more importantly, it revealed movements even in private not just in public.

Again, this is far removed from a camera in a public space.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#505

Post by Manuel_D »

text0404 wrote: post #502
Manuel_D wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house.

But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.

No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#506

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #491
text0404 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment.

ALPRs were always fed into databases, even back during the 90s. The whole point of ALPRs is to automate the task of reading license plates.

They weren't connected to nationwide databases which automatically record, store, and aggregate individuals' movements. Not constitutionally equivalent.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#507

Post by Manuel_D »

text0404 wrote: post #504
Manuel_D wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And?

... and you need a warrant to surveil individuals? And they have to be suspected of crimes?

You don't need a warrant to record people in public. You keep throwing around the term "surveil" as though this is a singular activity. Do the police need a warrant to search your house or car? Yes. Do they need a warrant to get Google to hand over your Gmail contents? Yes?

Do they need a warrant to photograph the exterior of your house? No. Do they need a warrant to photograph you in public? No

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#508

Post by MisterTea »

HEmanZ wrote: post #481
MisterTea wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What else would you suggest proper support when they are harassed by crime this much? How would a flock camera deter a thief from breaking into your garage? It's a false sense of security. I had a guy break into two tenant spaces with a screwdriver with cameras pointed all over the place. He just wore a surgical mask and hood while keeping his head down. Nothing could ID him. I had all the locks upgraded and one te…

“You either deal with it or move” do you think installing flock cameras isn’t an attempt to deal with it? If you go to council meetings and demand action, installing a bunch of flock cameras and increasing surveillance is a response. I say this as someone who agrees, cameras don’t work much. But my point is that people had better support some alternative then, instead of blocking every other attempt to improve the si…

> do you think installing flock cameras isn’t an attempt to deal with it?

It's not dealing with it because its lazy passive action where citizens shrug responsibility off to a 3rd party who only cares about making money and not the people on the other end. Nothing actually happens because cameras won't deter anything and only increase the ability for the government to abuse people.

Dealing with it means learning from the past and taking action. If the lock on your garage was picked then harden the garage lock. If your car was broken into then maybe it's safer in the garage. Buy your own motion sensing cameras with remote viewing. Install security bars or security windows and doors. Motion sensing lights all over. You either sit around and cry for someone else to magically fix the crime problem or defend your possessions.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#509

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #503
text0404 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google itself was somehow a constitutionally private space.

It didn't just reveal Chatrie's movements, it revealed to movements of everyone in the geofenced area. And more importantly, it revealed movements even in private not just in public. Again, this is far removed from a camera in a public space.

Chatrie was not about the dragnet capturing people in private spaces. It established that LE acquisition and aggregation of location information can constitute a fourth amendment search even when the observations are made in public.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#510

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #505
text0404 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.

No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect?

They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.
Post reply on HN