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

SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#101

Post by 93po »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #94

As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization. The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear…

ACLU creating an emotionally charged presentation makes sense if they:

1. Know the SC is going to decline anyway

2. Want press coverage and as much visibility on this as possible regardless

ACLU knows what they're doing. They're using the opportunity for (good) PR

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#102

Post by alewi481 »

lamontcg wrote: post #93
alewi481 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.

So after the US gets its own Stasi we should eventually get better anti-surveillance laws.

Depending on the extent to which surveillance and state control become embedded, it may require the advent of the Second American Republic to achieve their dissolution.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#103

Post by 93po »

brightball wrote: post #62
giantg2 wrote: post #16

I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes. There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out abou…

Is there anything stopping me from pointing a laser at the lens in response?

I've long thought about vandalizing red light cameras because they're a burden on the poor and statistically increase accidents. Vandalize like "cut it down with a sawzall" in a way that doesn't electrocute me. But high power laser makes a lot more sense and damages the most expensive part.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#104

Post by matthewmcg »

VancouverMan wrote: post #74
Workaccount2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utilities in the US are private entities with special regulations around them.

Aren't there some pretty significant electric utilities in the US that are municipally or state owned? The ones that come to my mind are in LA, Seattle, and Nebraska, if I'm not mistaken. At least in Canada, even when a "private" company is involved, there can be significant government ownership. Hydro One in Ontario is publicly-traded, yet the Ontario Government holds nearly a majority of the shares, for example.

That's right--in the U.S., some utilities are "investor-owned." Others are cooperatives (owned by customers) and still others are owned by various local governments.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#105

Post by matthewmcg »

gumby wrote: post #32
scott_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> police could just buy the data legally. Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?

Your position is logical, but unfortunately there is by now a large body of precedent saying that that gaping loophole is fine. So for example police can’t track your movement without a warrant, but they can buy that info from the phone companies. This could be fixed very simply by a law. The chances of such a law being passed are sadly extremely low.

Correct. This is called "third party doctrine," and the theory is that since you've voluntarily entrusted this data to the third party, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in it and a warrant is not needed.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#106

Post by Bran_son »

VancouverMan wrote: post #55
nulbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee. If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted…

> I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. Who owns the utility? In Canada, for example, it's common for the utility companies responsible for electricity transmission and/or distribution to be owned by provincial or municipal governments.

I propose that even if the government (indirectly) owns the utility pole, using them for espionage by a different government agency is still an infringement of rights.

The government also owns schools, libraries, and hospitals, yet (I would hope) we don't want that to mean the police can get your school transcripts, library or medical records, or compel hospital staff to restrain you until the police arrive, without a warrant.

In sum, the government owns far too much to be allowed to use all they own for whatever purpose they please.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#107

Post by stjohnswarts »

lamontcg wrote: post #93
alewi481 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.

So after the US gets its own Stasi we should eventually get better anti-surveillance laws.

We basically have the beginnings of one with MAGA politicians flourishing.

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#108

Post by [deleted] »

nulbyte wrote: post #24
giantg2 wrote: post #16

I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes. There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out abou…

I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee. If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted…

[deleted]

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#109

Post by feoren »

blagie wrote: post #42
pmoriarty wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.

With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith. As for lack of political agenda, the Supreme Court may be more polarized than it has ever been (at least in my lifetime), but it's worth looking in context: it's one of three branches. As has always been the case in US hi…

> With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary

Really? You haven't seen anything to the contrary? You haven't seen a supreme court justice being literally bribed for decades? You didn't see three recent supreme court appointees lie to congress?

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

#110

Post by rasz »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #11

Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.

Try placing cameras recording federal judges in public spaces and see how that works out for you.
Post reply on HN