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

111–120 of 120 posts

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

#111

Post by clove »

atoav wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Conviction for what?

> Conviction for what? Drug possession. Drugs they found in your car after a "random" stop. I Whether you never use drugs or not doesn't matter, they will find something. If you think cops have to play it fair if they wanna punish you, you are a bit naive.

Perhaps you are more naive than you think.

Do you think a police officer would really risk his livelihood to attempt this sort of thing?

Think about all of the illegal steps an officer would need to take - from procuring the drugs to falsifying the documents (narrative, etc.) - just to "punish" you.

And what exactly is the payoff?

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

#112

Post by vdqtp3 »

clove wrote: post #111
atoav wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conviction for what? Drug possession. Drugs they found in your car after a "random" stop. I Whether you never use drugs or not doesn't matter, they will find something. If you think cops have to play it fair if they wanna punish you, you are a bit naive.

Perhaps you are more naive than you think. Do you think a police officer would really risk his livelihood to attempt this sort of thing? Think about all of the illegal steps an officer would need to take - from procuring the drugs to falsifying the documents (narrative, etc.) - just to "punish" you. And what exactly is the payoff?

Yeah, it's completely ridiculous to imagine cops planting drugs.

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/baltimore-polic...

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

#113

Post by atoav »

clove wrote: post #111
atoav wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conviction for what? Drug possession. Drugs they found in your car after a "random" stop. I Whether you never use drugs or not doesn't matter, they will find something. If you think cops have to play it fair if they wanna punish you, you are a bit naive.

Perhaps you are more naive than you think. Do you think a police officer would really risk his livelihood to attempt this sort of thing? Think about all of the illegal steps an officer would need to take - from procuring the drugs to falsifying the documents (narrative, etc.) - just to "punish" you. And what exactly is the payoff?

I don't think anything here, I just watch what happens.

I wouldn't do most of the stuff cops in the US are doing, and without knowing you the slightest I still have some confidence that you wouldn't either.

Yet they do. Not all of them, but some. And that is enough.

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

#114

Post by nullc »

DesiLurker wrote: post #98
hwillis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of things are illegal when the government does it, but not when regular people do it. That's like, a major part of the constitution. Here's what's relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States > Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or…

how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none. I can understand carveouts for banned/non-public use frequencies but a blanket order must respect privacy.

Uh. Humans see in vis. You aren't protected against intrusion in vis because everyone would reasonable expect that intrusion, can easily anticipate it, and you'll be monitored by your any passers by in vis.

This is called a reasonable expectation of privacy. You don't have one in the visible spectrum for things visible outside of your property to arbitrary passers by.

Super-duper sensing devices can potentially violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The decision in Kyllo was pretty clearly explained by the court.

"there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. We think that obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search— at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the 35 *35 information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."

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

#115

Post by blagie »

giantg2 wrote: post #67
blagie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can: * Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you * Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs) * Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows ... and so on. Those were impossible 100 years ago, were expensive a few decades ago (outside of the means of my neighbors), are wit…

"Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you" No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc. "Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows" No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws. It varies slightly by state, but you cannot record people in a private setting with…

> No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc.

In my state: Record? No. Listen? Yes.

> No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws

In my state: Per statute, requires intent of voyeurism. There is some case law which suggests otherwise, based on a broad general right to privacy. It's very case-specific.

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

#116

Post by pnutjam »

lisper wrote: post #53
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…

> there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole. Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.

My local library, seems to be planning to do this: https://www.hepl.lib.in.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HEPL-B...>

From the linked document: I requested information regarding Flock security cameras from the company and spoke with their local sales rep, who provided the proposal in the packet for Board discussion. My understanding is that the library would essentially be subscribing to the data, and Flock would own and install the equipment, which would capture make, model, color and license plate data on all vehicles entering or exiting the library parking lots. This data would then be shared in real time with any law enforcement connected to the Flock network.

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

#117

Post by giantg2 »

blagie wrote: post #115
giantg2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you" No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc. "Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows" No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws. It varies slightly by state, but you cannot record people in a private setting with…

> No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc. In my state: Record? No. Listen? Yes. > No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws In my state: Per statute, requires intent of voyeurism. There is some case law which suggests otherwise, based on a broad general right to privacy. It's very case-specific.

Which state? Most have eavesdropping laws.

And I say peeping Tom laws, but some of the laws related there do not require it to be an intimate act. Some, like "prowling" laws make it a crime to be close to someone's house at night.

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

#118

Post by autoexec »

pnutjam wrote: post #116
lisper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole. Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.

My local library, seems to be planning to do this: https://www.hepl.lib.in.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HEPL-B... > From the linked document: I requested information regarding Flock security cameras from the company and spoke with their local sales rep, who provided the proposal in the packet for Board discussion. My understanding is that the library would essentially be subscribing to the data, and Flock would own…

libraries sure have changed! I remember when they fought back against handing the public's data over to the state. They resisted when the government demanded they turn over the reading lists of Americans, they lost, but at least they fought for us.

Many libraries now use, and heavily promote, third party ebook services that are also collecting the reading habits of card holders where it can be sold to the government or to anyone else willing to pay for it.

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

#119

Post by autoexec »

DesiLurker wrote: post #98
hwillis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of things are illegal when the government does it, but not when regular people do it. That's like, a major part of the constitution. Here's what's relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States > Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or…

how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none. I can understand carveouts for banned/non-public use frequencies but a blanket order must respect privacy.

> how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none.

I guess it should depend on what information is collected and how long the surveillance is. A camera picks up mostly visible light and if it's pointed at a house for months on end that's a major problem. Police can use radio waves to see through walls and track your actions inside your home from the outside, or fly overhead and see what you're doing using thermal cameras and that's much much more invasive but can take place in minutes.

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

#120

Post by CatWChainsaw »

clove wrote: post #111
atoav wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conviction for what? Drug possession. Drugs they found in your car after a "random" stop. I Whether you never use drugs or not doesn't matter, they will find something. If you think cops have to play it fair if they wanna punish you, you are a bit naive.

Perhaps you are more naive than you think. Do you think a police officer would really risk his livelihood to attempt this sort of thing? Think about all of the illegal steps an officer would need to take - from procuring the drugs to falsifying the documents (narrative, etc.) - just to "punish" you. And what exactly is the payoff?

I'm just savoring the irony here.
Post reply on HN