511–520 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... 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
Already a reality in mainland China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
By contrast, a person can stand on a street corner with their phone and record everything a Flock camera records.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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…
What a load of bullshit victim blaming.
A bit concerning how some people in this thread will bend over backwards to defend mass surveillance. Not surprising given who owns the board, but still.
I still am opposed to anything capable of mass surveillance because of how easily it is abused. But living in Seattle, my car has been broken into 4 times this summer alone (with nothing taken, because we leave nothing there), thiefs dug up the side of my house to steel copper wires, on my block someone dumped gasoline all over a tree and lit it on fire just because, people went around the neighborhood smashing front…
Hard/bad/no jobs? People will steal. And the thefts may cost $3000 to replace, but $300 in theft goods.
And even if you have a good job, inflation and US citizens getting fucked over by trump tariffs and inflation makes every year that much harder.
And when you KNOW the folks at the top (either party) are cheating, have always cheated, and will continue to do so - why the hell should I follow the law? It can be tax cheating, or copyright infringement, cutting down Flock (YC17) scameras, or more.
And when you KNOW you don't have any upward mobility and are stuck socioeconomically, well, it leads to what you see.
If we look at China, they have a whole different set of problems. The simpletons here will just bemoan 'Communist China' and are stuck in a McCarthyism mindset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dragnets have been constrained on both fourth and fifth amendment grounds. It's not merely the inconvenience of being stopped and questioned that makes a dragnet illegal, it is also an illegal search.
But Flock isn't searching anybody. You keep calling it a dragnet, or an illegal search, but the courts have repeatedly held that recording images in public needs no warrant or probable case.
A camera pointed at a public street isn't the same constitutional question as LE searching a persistent database to reconstruct someone's movements. The latter falls into fourth amendment search territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
You keep missing that these aren't singular photographs. This isn't the 70s: these are persistent systems that aggregate video and photographs of everyone, tracking their movements over time. That is enough to make this constitutionally distinct from a cop taking a single picture of your house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep missing that these aren't singular photographs. This isn't the 70s: these are persistent systems that aggregate video and photographs of everyone, tracking their movements over time. That is enough to make this constitutionally distinct from a cop taking a single picture of your house.
And? These are still videos of people in public. This information is in plain view. You keep insisting that if you aggregate public information it somehow becomes private information, but that's not true unless the Supreme Court makes some new precedence-setting decision.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States