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

Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 324 posts

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#131

Post by eszed »

huimang wrote: post #49
hopelessluca wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.

> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…

I agree with much more in your comment than I don't, but

> It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home.

Is pat to the point of naiveté.

People get shot turning into the wrong driveway[1], or knocking on the wrong door[2]. If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A.

But, you probably meant something like that when you said

> you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly at each other. The government / police should be able to handle this [but don't.

And I agree with that on both points.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kaylin_Gillis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ralph_Yarl

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#132

Post by defrost »

alex43578 wrote: post #126
fluidcruft wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the debate about the Bill of Rights itself was that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize those activities the first place (which is why they were amendments) and that listing any of them would imply that things not explicitly listed were somewhat endorsed. But I do know the Founders had no clue about computers, networks, cameras or license plates so they certthad no opinions about Flock cameras when t…

If you remove the technology that they wouldn’t understand, the founders wouldn’t consider Flock to be some absurd concept: a sheriff asking a night watchman standing on the road into town “did you see George go by riding Samuel’s horse?” It’s a reasonable question, it’s a public road, and it doesn’t violate George’s privacy in his person, home, papers, or belongings.

How about "Give me an instant heat map of all of George's movements the past year across all 13 states. With a particular focus on parking up near any and all brothels"

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#133

Post by alex43578 »

defrost wrote: post #132
alex43578 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you remove the technology that they wouldn’t understand, the founders wouldn’t consider Flock to be some absurd concept: a sheriff asking a night watchman standing on the road into town “did you see George go by riding Samuel’s horse?” It’s a reasonable question, it’s a public road, and it doesn’t violate George’s privacy in his person, home, papers, or belongings.

How about "Give me an instant heat map of all of George's movements the past year across all 13 states. With a particular focus on parking up near any and all brothels"

Do you think George parking his horse/car in a public parking lot outside a brothel should confer an expectation of privacy?

Can a bank or ATM miles away have a security camera, just on the off-chance that George stops to withdraw cash for said brothel?

Can police not stake out the brothel to gather evidence of prostitution because all the patrons have an expectation of privacy?

IE, is it ever acceptable to be noticed in public just because you may be doing something unsavory?

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#134

Post by moralestapia »

alex43578 wrote: post #123
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #60

For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#135

Post by alex43578 »

eternauta3k wrote: post #129
alex43578 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

Not American, but 1. I don't think Texas was around during the Tea Party, and 2. Property is also a right, so this is just about how much privacy you are willing to sacrifice for how much property.

I've yet to hear a convincing connection between driving down a public road and having privacy - in fact, the outside of a registered motor vehicle on a public road is about as non-private as you can expect.

You already have a unique plate tied to the registered owner of the car, and a range of court cases have held you can be stopped, ordered out of the car, questioned (by both police and immigration enforcement), etc.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#136

Post by smelendez »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #17
sokoloff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No. So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.

If you sleep in the car it will qualify no matter where you're parked. This also appears to be true of an RV or any vehicle that clearly accommodates sleeping. For reference: "Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to comm…

> I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.

I’ve thought about this too. They often vary from state to state as well. But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#137

Post by alex43578 »

moralestapia wrote: post #134
alex43578 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?

"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#138

Post by defrost »

alex43578 wrote: post #133
defrost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "Give me an instant heat map of all of George's movements the past year across all 13 states. With a particular focus on parking up near any and all brothels"

Do you think George parking his horse/car in a public parking lot outside a brothel should confer an expectation of privacy? Can a bank or ATM miles away have a security camera, just on the off-chance that George stops to withdraw cash for said brothel? Can police not stake out the brothel to gather evidence of prostitution because all the patrons have an expectation of privacy? IE, is it ever acceptable to be notice…

It's not the individual threads, it's the tapestry made whole.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#139

Post by moralestapia »

alex43578 wrote: post #137
moralestapia wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?

"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

Ok, it's not called a "right", it's the fourth amendment, and federal statutes and state laws and whatnot.

You got me there, pal ;) I didn't use the exact technical terms you expected, my argument is now void, nooo.

I guess I should go and install one of those cameras right outside my house now.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#140

Post by alex43578 »

moralestapia wrote: post #139
alex43578 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

Ok, it's not called a "right", it's the fourth amendment, and federal statutes and state laws and whatnot. You got me there, pal ;) I didn't use the exact technical terms you expected, my argument is now void, nooo. I guess I should go and install one of those cameras right outside my house now.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" in case you forgot.

I'm not saying you have to reply in a technical term - just explain how being seen and recorded driving down a public street, in a vehicle that's required to display an identifiable plate you've registered with the government, constitutes a search, seizure, or even an invasion of your privacy.

Nobody's saying you have to install a camera outside your house (ignoring the dozens of cameras your neighbors have willingly installed to replace their doorbell or to deter theft/burglary). But you can't argue that the government or private businesses can't deploy cameras because you expect privacy in the middle of a road.

Post reply on HN