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

The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#51

Post by 306bobby »

john_strinlai wrote: post #42
mannanj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you bringing up 2 separate actions that can trigger a registration requirement. 1) Garaging a vehicle, for x days or more. 2) Driving a vehicle, for x days or more. Have you looked into what the specifics are, and how they are triggered? Poking some holes at this: - Are you on the hook to register vehicles you don't own for actions (1) or (2)? Consider two examples: (a) you rent a vehicle, (b) you drive or cho…

> Consider two examples: (a) you rent a vehicle, (b) you drive or choose to house a friends' vehicle. in both cases, the vehicle would already be registered in the state (by the rental company or by the friend). it is not clear to me why you think the vehicles would need to be re-registered.

I haven't spent much time personally in Cali, but the places I have had to rent a car from I've never had a rental car plated in the same state I'm driving/renting it from

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#52

Post by FireBeyond »

alistairSH wrote: post #26
twoodfin wrote: post #4

To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…

Is Flock really 3rd party? Yes, they're a private entity, but they largely owe their existence to government contracts. They maintain their database on behalf of various governments. Their primary sales pitch is to law enforcement. It feels like something completely different than Alphabet's or Meta's databases of person/user data. I do agree that Flock is also not the same as the database of cell phone location data…

Specifically as intended.

For states where law enforcement cannot do such things directly, they can still contract with a private provider, either as an RFP, or (as in some states) "you can't RFP this butttt if some private provider just so happened to provide it, you can use it".

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#53

Post by john_strinlai »

306bobby wrote: post #51
john_strinlai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider two examples: (a) you rent a vehicle, (b) you drive or choose to house a friends' vehicle. in both cases, the vehicle would already be registered in the state (by the rental company or by the friend). it is not clear to me why you think the vehicles would need to be re-registered.

I haven't spent much time personally in Cali, but the places I have had to rent a car from I've never had a rental car plated in the same state I'm driving/renting it from

the rental car is obviously already going to be legal in the state (if not cali plated, then registration is probably via fleet registration or international registration plan (IRP), etc).

under no circumstance are you (the customer) going to be required to (or even able to) register the car you are renting.

i would not take car registration advice from a person asking about registering someone else's car at the dmv.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#54

Post by twosdai »

827a wrote: post #43

The argument I struggle to get around and would love to hear a counter-argument to: Let's say a local police department hired 175 police officers, each being told "Go stand on this particular intersection with a pad of paper and write down every license plate you see". This would be a stupid use of resources, but is not outside the realm of something a well-funded police department could do. Every night they take the…

I would say the purposeless capture of information is the correct counter argument here.

Specifically, even if a county hired all those officers and did what you suggest if there is no purpose other than recording all this information. I believe it would be a constitutional violation. A person has the right to reasonable privacy outside of their home. License plates can and should be recorded when there is a relevant purpose to it. Such as toll collection, or a scoped traffic watch done by a police officer or a traffic camera. The dragnet collection of data for "maybe its useful" or "we don't know when it will be useful, but it might" has generally been struck down when brought to the supreme court.

For Flock's case, they don't operate as far as I know as ticket issuing traffic cameras which have a much tighter level of control of how they operate. IE: Traffic cameras have clear signs near them notifying the drivers of their usage, in some states the issuing of the citation cannot be considered criminal (Civil issuance) and must not capture faces of drivers.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#55

Post by Terr_ »

stickfigure wrote: post #38
estearum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they argued these records are akin to a record of the person's travel history. > As Google puts it, and no one seriously disputes, Location History serves as a “diary” or map “of a person’s travels.” "Diary" is a red herring here. They're referring to a location log, just like what Flock produces.

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

Justifying some control does not justify all control. Voting is a "privilege" too [0] but does that mean any state government should be recording an exact log of your ballot-choices? Surely not.

[0] It should be a far stronger right than what it is right now, but that's separate big debate.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#56

Post by nateb2022 »

827a wrote: post #43

The argument I struggle to get around and would love to hear a counter-argument to: Let's say a local police department hired 175 police officers, each being told "Go stand on this particular intersection with a pad of paper and write down every license plate you see". This would be a stupid use of resources, but is not outside the realm of something a well-funded police department could do. Every night they take the…

> In comparison: license plates, when in public, are always visible, and very easy to discern from one-another (different state-unique numbers); so in my mind the expectation of privacy is far lower.

According to Carpenter:

  A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'
Being present in plain view isn't equivalent to a total surrender of privacy.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#57

Post by FireBeyond »

NDlurker wrote: post #30
afavour wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. I mean, it’s both, right? You’re definitely getting a tax advantage compared to a lot of areas of the country. And how is insurance going to work?

I live in North Dakota and the cost of maintaining a Montana LLC would be more than my yearly registration fee. Something I started doing is getting new plates every year so historical data of my movement based on plate number only goes back a year.

Now all you have to do is ensure your state's DOL doesn't enter into a data sharing agreement with Flock for historical license plate correlation...

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#58

Post by kube-system »

alistairSH wrote: post #26
twoodfin wrote: post #4

To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party…

Is Flock really 3rd party? Yes, they're a private entity, but they largely owe their existence to government contracts. They maintain their database on behalf of various governments. Their primary sales pitch is to law enforcement. It feels like something completely different than Alphabet's or Meta's databases of person/user data. I do agree that Flock is also not the same as the database of cell phone location data…

Being a government contractor doesn't make you a part of the government. A lot of companies have government contracts, many more so than Flock.

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#59

Post by FireBeyond »

mannanj wrote: post #17
afavour wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. I mean, it’s both, right? You’re definitely getting a tax advantage compared to a lot of areas of the country. And how is insurance going to work?

Tax advantages are not tax evasion. Otherwise, why bother with doing anything that is tax advantaged if when anyone calls it tax evasion or accuses someone of a crime the accused just give up and takes guilt (assumption of guilt over innocence) paying whatever is asked? Insurance is a bit tricky though I've heard it's simple. Most companies don't ask or inquire about where the cars registered, and neither do repair s…

At least in my state, as a former emergency services worker, our EVIP (emergency vehicle incident prevention) course (which serves as a "substitute" for requiring a CDL to drive an emergency vehicle) absolutely tells you that driver liability can and will flow through to your personally, even when driving a work vehicle for work purposes. (Because that also comes with a presumption of liability for any incident that happens in "emergency mode" departments, agencies will generally also hold insurance specifically for that flow through that says "while the law says you can do anything, with due regard, in emergency mode, as long as you stay in our more restrictive SOPs, our insurer will also cover your personal liability".)

Re: The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

#60

Post by 0x1d7 »

mannanj wrote: post #17
afavour wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. I mean, it’s both, right? You’re definitely getting a tax advantage compared to a lot of areas of the country. And how is insurance going to work?

Tax advantages are not tax evasion. Otherwise, why bother with doing anything that is tax advantaged if when anyone calls it tax evasion or accuses someone of a crime the accused just give up and takes guilt (assumption of guilt over innocence) paying whatever is asked? Insurance is a bit tricky though I've heard it's simple. Most companies don't ask or inquire about where the cars registered, and neither do repair s…

Those charged by the AG in CA were charged with tax fraud. It was apparent that they were actively avoiding taxes based on recorded messages and fraudulent documents.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/california-is-done-with-rich-g...

> One defendant texted that another conspirator “made me provide a fake bill of lading which cost $200 but did allow me to pickup the Urus.”

Post reply on HN