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

91–100 of 120 posts

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

#91

Post by JoeAltmaier »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #89
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine if cameras and IoT devices continue to miniaturize, one day they'll float on the wind like a dandelion puff. Folks could spread them around like dust. Helicopters could crop-dust them over entire cities. In future we'll have to come up with some social rules about ubiquitous surveillance. Because it will become the norm.

That's the plot to A Deepness in the Sky . There exist no possible sets of rules to mitigate the scenario in your prediction. Find a way to avert that future.

Doesn't seem there's any possible way to avoid that scenario.

Sure we can still have privacy. I hear what goes on behind a bathroom door, but I pretend I don't. It would be the height of boorishness to say anything. Similarly, to admit you know anything about someone you learned from 'remote viewing' could be appalling manners etc.

People are very adaptable. Come from a line of people who lived in tiny villages and knew everybody's business. And yet here we are.

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

#92

Post by Clubber »

cnelsenmilt wrote: post #81
Clubber wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>write law phrasing to your satisfaction I wasn't trying to be combative, I just thought you had an idea that I hadn't thought of that would satisfy the privacy concerns with the freedom to photograph in public concerns. >By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved. So a lady gets arrested for photo…

Sure, it is hard. But there's a gigantic middle ground between "no photographs ever that contain any part of your house" and "permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government". It is far from impossible to write some rules that balances these things. Yes, there will be loopholes: a criminal who wants to photograph your house could come by with their nephew and stage a photoshoot.…

>"permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government".

I'd be fine with regulating / banning without a warrant the second half of that sentence. I don't want to prevent people from having security cameras outside their home, those are pretty useful.

The current loophole is police asking the same 3rd parties that host your data for that data and those 3rd parties can comply without your consent. We'd need some type of data ownership laws for that sort of thing. I'd certainly support that. There are laws around NIL (name, image likeness) and ownership thereof. I'l like to see those applied to third party data storage vendors, but like dragon_lady mentioned, it's a step.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent the police asking your neighbor or local business for locally stored footage.

>the law is not an algorithm

Laws should be as specific and un-vague as possible to prevent abuse, mainly from the government itself.

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

#93

Post by lamontcg »

alewi481 wrote: post #41
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #9

It's interesting to note that -conversely- German laws on camera surveillance are very strict!

I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.

So after the US gets its own Stasi we should eventually get better anti-surveillance laws.

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

#94

Post by friend_and_foe »

As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization.

The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.

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

#95

Post by sangnoir »

syrrim wrote: post #75
scott_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> police could just buy the data legally. Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?

> The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Why would they need to? Stalking you doesn't require a warrant. Breaking into your house, for example, would require a warrant, but a PI can't do that any more legally than the police can.

> Breaking into your house, for example, would require a warrant, but a PI can't do that any more legally than the police can.

If your neighbor's Ring camera is pointed at your front door or living room, the police can legally acquire the footage without a warrant.

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

#96

Post by friend_and_foe »

pmoriarty wrote: post #17
blagie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side. Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example: - The…

The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.

[flagged]

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

#97

Post by friend_and_foe »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #58

On police documentary shows, it’s frequently stated that anything in public view is not considered private. Is this different here (legally that is)?

Probably not.

Honestly the only difference between how things are done traditionally and this is that the cop watching the footage isn't in a car outside with a video camera. Fundamentally functionally the scenarios are no different, one is just less cumbersome to do.

Now, I do think that even manual surveillance should require a warrant, as well as purchasing private evidence such as doorbell camera footage, but I'm unlikely to see a ruling in my favor on that any time soon.

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

#98

Post by DesiLurker »

hwillis wrote: post #76
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…

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.

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

#99

Post by startupsfail »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #87
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 a difference between 'no privacy from the street' and 'filming everything all the time'. Like the difference between picking an orange from a neighbor's tree, and bringing in a combine harvester. Pedants will insist they are the 'same' somehow. But socially we know that's not true. It matters to us that we feel some sense of privacy most of the time. It's all about degree.

It’s called dragnet surveillance. It is problematic when it is used and it is illegal in most democratic countries.

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

#100

Post by startupsfail »

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.

I think you can rent the spot on the pole, if you’d like to put a device there (e.g. a Wi-Fi retransmitter).
Post reply on HN