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

61–70 of 105 posts

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

#61

Post by nateb2022 »

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.

> 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.

If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

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

#62

Post by kube-system »

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…

Many states have laws that require a vehicle to be registered in-state if they have established residence, or similar.

Even if you are able to register a vehicle legally in another state, that does not necessarily exempt you from obligations in your own state... even if it would for non-residents passing through.

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

#63

Post by 1shooner »

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.

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a GPS car tracker is a 4th amendment search.

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

#64

Post by stickfigure »

estearum wrote: post #44
stickfigure wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.

This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B.

Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand.

As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different.

Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?

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

#65

Post by skinfaxi »

nateb2022 wrote: post #61
stickfigure wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of ever…

> The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?

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

#66

Post by nkrisc »

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.

That may be true, but I fail to see how that justifies broad, warrantless surveillance. Could you elaborate?

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

#67

Post by nateb2022 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #65
nateb2022 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of ever…

> The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either. Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?

> Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history?

You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public with the indiscriminate collection of photos of all vehicles. The former is a constitutional, isolated observation. The latter is a search, since in toto it reveals personal information.

> If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?

May the police pay a third party to execute warrantless searches?

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

#68

Post by lightedman »

stickfigure wrote: post #34
estearum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

"I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals""

A vehicle is literally considered an extension of your body, and this has been held up many times, starting with Carroll in 1929.

More recently, the 9th circuit put forth a ruling vacating a man's conviction because a cop merely touched the vehicle, thus triggering a warrantless search complaint.

There's a lot of case law that goes against what you're thinking.

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

#69

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

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.

Flock also has facial recognition. There are Flock cameras on public walking paths.

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

#70

Post by stickfigure »

nateb2022 wrote: post #61
stickfigure wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of ever…

We probably all agree that a cellphone is closely associated with you and acts as a surrogate brain, so it gets treated as "you", at least as much as the _inside_ of your house or car.

You the right of free travel (with or without your phone). Automobiles are different. You can't take it everywhere; you can't park it everywhere; you can't move it about in secret (plates MUST be displayed, always).

You have an expectation of privacy for the inside of your car. But not the outside of your car. And even the inside... if it's visible from the windows, it's public.

Post reply on HN