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

81–90 of 105 posts

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

#81

Post by estearum »

mr_luc wrote: post #77
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.

Above was a quote from Carpenter, and the Court seems to have called out that the completeness of the record meant it recorded them, 'not only in public thoroughfares', but also private homes and doctor's office and so forth. It does seem like that's an element, then -- this is not to say that it's sufficient for anything, since obviously a sufficiently good record of where one goes on public thoroughfares would fail…

It's the completeness of the record that matters, not the publicness of it.

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

#82

Post by xboxnolifes »

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…

Do flock cameras only store license plates and nothing else at all?

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

#83

Post by stickfigure »

estearum wrote: post #80
stickfigure wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant because it trespasses on private property (the vehicle). On the other hand, law enforcement can follow your car with a drone, helicopter, or other vehicle without a warrant. Are cameras more like a helicopter or more like a GPS tracker? The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet.

No no no, not true. US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass was required, and deferred to Katz v United States analysis. That analysis was used shortly after in Carpenter v United States to answer that the government cannot use third party dat…

You said "no" then vigorously agreed with me. My point was that, contrary to the grandparent, US v Jones does not resolve this question.

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

#84

Post by mr_luc »

estearum wrote: post #81
mr_luc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above was a quote from Carpenter, and the Court seems to have called out that the completeness of the record meant it recorded them, 'not only in public thoroughfares', but also private homes and doctor's office and so forth. It does seem like that's an element, then -- this is not to say that it's sufficient for anything, since obviously a sufficiently good record of where one goes on public thoroughfares would fail…

It's the completeness of the record that matters, not the publicness of it.

Yes that feels like a good characterization.

Which, I would say, does seem a lot less black-and-white than the cell phone example, and anyone who thinks it's all settled now might be in for a surprise.

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

#85

Post by bigbuppo »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #82
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…

Do flock cameras only store license plates and nothing else at all?

Flock is a tech company. The cameras almost certainly being used for marketing and advertising purposes.

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

#86

Post by estearum »

stickfigure wrote: post #83
estearum wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no no, not true. US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass was required, and deferred to Katz v United States analysis. That analysis was used shortly after in Carpenter v United States to answer that the government cannot use third party dat…

You said "no" then vigorously agreed with me. My point was that, contrary to the grandparent, US v Jones does not resolve this question.

Somebody reading your comment would come away with the idea that the government is allowed to track cars with GPS so long as they do not trespass in order to do it. This is not true.

The unanimous opinion did not rule on that, but also the 5-0 concurring opinion found specifically and explicitly that even if there were no trespass at all, it still would be a 4th Amendment violation.

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

#87

Post by ChiperSoft »

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…

The collection of the data is not whats of concern here. The issue is the use of the data in legal proceedings. Flock can gather all they want, but police accessing it and using it as evidence is where it rubs against the constitution.

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

#88

Post by mannanj »

lokar wrote: post #23
kelnos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, at least, if you are a resident of the state, you are legally required to register cars garaged in California with the California DMV. (It's actually a little ambiguous in an annoying way; even if you have a car that's garaged out of state, simply bringing it to CA for a weekend and driving it around can potentially trigger the CA registration requirement, again, assuming you are a CA resident.) I'd be…

And the CHP has a website where you can report violations.

I address this below. Adding my personal interpretation onto it, I think it's fear-mongering and the only enforcement and successful litigation I've seen on it is when tax is actually not paid.

If you're worried, seek legal council and pay your use tax.

Consider also this Montana-route may require being brave because when you make a stand for something like privacy, which is under attack, you too may be attacked even if you are in the right legally.

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

#89

Post by mannanj »

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.

it is not me who thinks the vehicles need to be re-registered, but those who are making the argument that you need to register a vehicle you dont own simply because you drove it in a state or garaged it there.

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

#90

Post by mannanj »

stackskipton wrote: post #39
mannanj wrote: post #3

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. You can still pay your use tax and be a good citizen, and in fact, its probably a better demonstration of your duties as a citizen to protect the right to privacy and say to your local governments that have a history of abusing and selli…

>not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. Depends on the state, in my former state, Virginia, it is tax evasion. This is not unique to Virginia BTW, Georgia has similar laws. By law in VA, all cars that are garaged in state for longer than 90 days must pay the car tax. Only reason Montana LLC registered cars get away from it is most counties find out who must pay the tax from…

> By law in VA, all cars that are garaged in state for longer than 90 days must pay the car tax.

This is a lie. The law is that someone must register and through that process pay the registration tax. However you can't register a vehicle you don't own.

So you are left with one thing: use tax. Is use tax applicable to you?

>in my former state, Virginia, it is tax evasion

I think this is untrue as well. I'm very familiar with Virginia and spent a lot of my life living there. What makes it tax evasion?

Post reply on HN