551–560 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surreal in the way that your constitutional rights are being casually violated?
The Constitution does not prohibit government (or anyone for that matter) from recording people in public spaces. ALPRs have been in widespread use since the 90s, I am continuously puzzled where people get the idea that this is new technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice that the person I responded to was speaking about a military checkpoint near the border. Do you know what that is?
If anything that makes surveillance even less noteworthy. Is it really surprising that a military installation has surveillance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing the technology used in Jones with the principle Carpenter cited it for: a person can have a 4A privacy interest in the whole of their physical movements, including movements in public.
And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the police accessing someone's vehicle without a warrant. You seem to be under the impression that the opinion of the court in the Jones was that everyone's public movements are private and the police nee…
And maybe it wasn't the decision in Jones, but Carpenter specifically cites Alito's concurrence for the proposition that a person has a 4A privacy interest in aggregation of movement data and describes GPS tracking in Jones as raising those privacy concerns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> draft good legislation to curb potential abuses No such thing. Unless it is mathematically impossible for the government to abuse you, then you will be abused.
That sounds like an argument for anarchism. I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion. What seems to me to have worked is understanding that a government is necessary, that it has the potential to misbehave, and therefore we should carefully design laws and processes to constrain it. I would like to see opponents of mass surveillance do this, which seems more prod…
Fundamentally impossible. Power structures are inherent to all human social activity. Even if we instantaneously abolished all governments and all power structures, new ones would spontaneously form immediately after.
> I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion.
People's inability or unwillingness to take things to their logical conclusion is why mainstream political philosophy is doomed to fail. If you want to test principles, then you must assign extreme values to all variables and see how the system copes. Everybody breaks under this simple test.
> we should carefully design laws and processes to constrain it
Those already exist and are routinely ignored. The US government routinely disregards the rights of its own citizens, and nothing happens, all it has to do is say the magic words "national security" and it all goes away. Every once in a while, evidence of abuses somehow surface and they are so egregious that they have no choice but to do something about it, but due to survivorship bias you must assume the abuse is far more prevalent than what you're actually seeing.
Only structural solutions meaningfully change this calculus. It must be impossible for the government to abuse you in any way. Anything short of that will fail.
Perhaps its time that YC mentioned explicitly that if they are going to fund a company which holds specific PII data(i would include precise location history to start with) they would have to guarantee: 1. An erase-me feature if they gained over say some X unique/active users. 2. Disclose to their best legal abilities on warrants served in the countries that allow such disclosure. Allow for strong whistle blower prot…
You can’t even do that with your HN account..you think Flock, with its lucrative gov contracts…would ever?
It went under the radar but is a good example of _some_ incremental positive improvement over centralized storage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it arrests several thousands of people every year for breaches of the communications act(s) - this could be for online harassment, stalking or trying to defraud people over Facebook messenger. It's the equivalent of 'wire fraud' in the US.
They are arresting them for social media posts. You are lying
The most common case is Lucy Connolly, who was arrested for inciting racial hatred and pleaded guilty to the crime which carries a prison sentence.
Or are you just a random non UK citizen who has been reading disinformation on social media?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter . Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amendment protection, nor does it matter that its a third party that does the collecting (Google, Flock, whoever). What matters is that LE is conducting four…
It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements . Your phone's GPS data doesn't just track where you drive on public roads, it also tracks you walking around your private property. > The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amend…
"A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'"
> But that doesn't meant police can't record public spaces.
> Recording public spaces isn't a Fourth Amendment search.
I'm not saying either of these things. The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data". I don't care who collects the data (Flock, or Axon, or Google, or whoever): if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. The fact that the data is owned by a private company or that some of it is considered private by the individual doesn't matter: it's about tracking individuals over time.
> Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. ...and including movements occurring in private. > The fact that the data is owned by a private company or that some of it is considered private by the individual doesn't matter: it's about tracking individuals over time. More impor…
> A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
This would still be an issue even if they weren't recorded in private spaces. At issue here is the reconstruction of data, regardless of if it happened in public or private spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements . Your phone's GPS data doesn't just track where you drive on public roads, it also tracks you walking around your private property. > The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not automatically eliminate fourth amend…
Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the publ…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
> The Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter was narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine related to other business records that might incidentally reveal location information, nor did it overrule prior decisions concerning conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras.
You're trying to expand the scope of the decision on Carpenter to encompasses video cameras, or location tracking in general, but that is not true.
> The quote that you're responding to literally says "What matters is that LE is conducting fourth amendment searches using that data".
No, it does not. It says that public activity may be protected, not that it is protected. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that this decision was narrowly scoped to the context of phone location data.
> if the cops are searching a persistent database which monitors and tracks people over time, it is a 4A issue.
Carpenter only established this in the context of phone location information. You're inventing your own decision when you try to expand this to public facing cameras.