Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit • Hacker News Board

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#521

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #517

Manuel_D wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Law enforcement is using a third party (Flock) to get around constitutional requirements. 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.

Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over? No, the putting public facing camera video into a database does not make it a search. The case you cited, Chatrie vs. United States, involved the government demanding that Google hand over private cellphone location data on everyone inside of a geofence boundary. The court decided that forcing Google to hand over geolocation data was akin to forcing Google to hand over email contents, which requires a warrant. You're trying to turn around and interpret this to saying that the plain view doctrine doesn't apply to ALPRs, which record public spaces.

This isn't the case of law enforcement using a third party to get around constitutional requirements. The government could set up their own cameras doing exactly what Flock does, and it would still not violate anyone's constitutional requirements. Because people don't have a right to not be recorded in public, no matter how much you want that to be the case.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#522

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #520

Manuel_D wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That precedence-setting decision would be Carpenter v US [1], which established that being in public does not automatically eliminate all fourth amendment protection, and the comprehensive nature of government surveillance can matter constitutionally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

[deleted]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#523

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #506

Manuel_D wrote: post #491

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.

Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#524

Post by wat10000 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:33 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #385

wat10000 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and while we're at it, we can stop theft by having the thieves choose not to steal. If your approach is that we can fix abuses by having the abuser write down rules that say they're not allowed to abuse us, why limit it to public surveillance? Stick cameras in everybody's houses while we're at it. Think of all the horrible crimes that go on behind closed doors. Solve the privacy issues with legislation.

If red light cameras are incorrectly calibrated, that seems like something that could be challenged in court and changed. > If your approach is that we can fix abuses by having the abuser write down rules that say they're not allowed to abuse us, why limit it to public surveillance? Stick cameras in everybody's houses while we're at it. Think of all the horrible crimes that go on behind closed doors. Solve the privac…

There's a pretty big gulf between "unalloyed good" and "ripe for abuse, but the courts might save you."

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#525

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:35 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #520

Manuel_D wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That precedence-setting decision would be Carpenter v US [1], which established that being in public does not automatically eliminate all fourth amendment protection, and the comprehensive nature of government surveillance can matter constitutionally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

Carpenter v. United States was about the government accessing telecommunications data. This is not public information, location data also tracks people's movements on private property. Just like the other case you cited, Chatrie v. United States, this is a situation wholly removed from public facing video cameras.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#526

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #514

text0404 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the observations in the Chatrie case weren't made in public. This was private information that only Google had access to, and law enforcement went and demanded that Google hand over that private information. By contrast, a person can stand on a street corner with their phone and record everything a Flock camera records.

The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. So you're kind of agreeing with me here: the data is either private and subject to a warrant, or it is in public where individuals do have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt aggregated location information.

And again, a person standing on a street corner is constitutionally distinct from LE following and tracking individuals movement over time.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#527

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #521

text0404 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law enforcement is using a third party (Flock) to get around constitutional requirements. 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.

Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over? No, the putting public facing camera video into a database does not make it a search. The case you cited, Chatrie vs. United States, involved the government demanding that Google hand over private cellphone location data on everyone inside of a geofence boundary. The court decided that forcing Google to hand over geolocation data was a…

> Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over

The same amount that you do, dude. You're in every single one of these threads, and despite being proven wrong over and over again you keep being "confused" about how people are against this technology. Even in this thread, you keep responding with the same points based on your equivocation of an individual taking a picture in public and a state law enforcement organization aggregating and tracking individuals who haven't committed crimes.

Try reading some SC cases and actually paying attention to the responses you're getting.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#528

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:42 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #510

Manuel_D wrote: post #505

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.

[deleted]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#529

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #510

Manuel_D wrote: post #505

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.

[deleted]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#530

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #523

text0404 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?

They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search.