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

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by nateb2022 »

stickfigure wrote: post #70
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…

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 expecta…

As Katz established, the Fourth Amendment protects people, NOT places. The assumption that "if it's visible from the windows, it's public" is a dangerous non-sequiter that completely falls apart under any form of jurisprudence.

Your understanding of privacy misapplies the plain view doctrine. Plain view allows the state to seize evidence provided that the officer seizing the evidence has a lawful right to access or observe the seized object. (Collins v. Virginia)

An officer glancing through a car window is performing a constitutional act.

However, were the state to compile a history of your car's location, which it does, that exposes your "familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." (Jones) This compilation of data is an action legally defined as a search, since it turns up data NOT readily available in plain view. And this search takes place without warrant.

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

#92

Post by skinfaxi »

nateb2022 wrote: post #67
skinfaxi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public

I didn't say anything about a single car. Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly? If that's not a search why would a police-sanctioned camera be any different? I'm genuinely interested in understanding the distinction.

I'm not in love with the encroaching mass surveillance society but in terms of privacy in public there is little in the US by right.

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

#93

Post by skinfaxi »

nateb2022 wrote: post #72
nateb2022 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In the 1760s there was something called a writ of assistance, which allowed British officers to search any location for smuggled goods without specific suspicion. The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Fourth Amendment in direct response to these abusive general warrants, protecting against the exact kind of arbitrary power that placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (John Adams)…

US v Jones was in the context of placing an actual recording device on an individual vehicle, which seems dramatically distinct from observing every passing vehicle and recording what you saw. Police cars already do this to some extent with ALPR, scanning for plates that have been reported stolen.

https://www.leonardocompany-us.com/lpr/blog/new-technology-h...

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

#94

Post by nateb2022 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #93
nateb2022 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1760s there was something called a writ of assistance, which allowed British officers to search any location for smuggled goods without specific suspicion. The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Fourth Amendment in direct response to these abusive general warrants, protecting against the exact kind of arbitrary power that placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (John Adams)…

US v Jones was in the context of placing an actual recording device on an individual vehicle, which seems dramatically distinct from observing every passing vehicle and recording what you saw. Police cars already do this to some extent with ALPR, scanning for plates that have been reported stolen. https://www.leonardocompany-us.com/lpr/blog/new-technology-h...

> US v Jones was in the context of placing an actual recording device on an individual vehicle

You are focusing exclusively on Justice Scalia's opinion. Five other Justices provided two separate concurrences in that same case, including Alito's:

  society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.

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

#95

Post by nateb2022 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #92
nateb2022 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public I didn't say anything about a single car. Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly? If that's not a search why would a police-sanctioned camera be any differen…

> Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly?

Let me quote myself on this:

> As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." An action revealing all this is ipso facto a search.

> I'm not in love with the encroaching mass surveillance society but in terms of privacy in public there is little in the US by right.

Suggesting that a citizen possesses "little privacy in public by right" is to stand the American constitutional order squarely on its head. You have a very Eurocentric understanding of rights, as if they're concessions by the king/government to the people. We do things the opposite way.

The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (Ninth Amendment). Further, the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves powers not delegated to the government to the states or to the people. What's your proposed basis, historic or constitutionally, granting the state the power to aggregate people's location history? The burden does not fall on the citizen to produce a right not to be monitored; it rests entirely on the state to demonstrate the authority to monitor.

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

#96

Post by skinfaxi »

nateb2022 wrote: post #94
skinfaxi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US v Jones was in the context of placing an actual recording device on an individual vehicle, which seems dramatically distinct from observing every passing vehicle and recording what you saw. Police cars already do this to some extent with ALPR, scanning for plates that have been reported stolen. https://www.leonardocompany-us.com/lpr/blog/new-technology-h...

> US v Jones was in the context of placing an actual recording device on an individual vehicle You are focusing exclusively on Justice Scalia's opinion. Five other Justices provided two separate concurrences in that same case, including Alito's: society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement…

I appreciate that quote. My take was indeed founded on the majority opinion, which holds out non-physical intrusions as a separate issue that the verdict did not reach.

"It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question."

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

#97

Post by skinfaxi »

nateb2022 wrote: post #95
skinfaxi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public I didn't say anything about a single car. Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly? If that's not a search why would a police-sanctioned camera be any differen…

> Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly? Let me quote myself on this: > As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious,…

> What's your proposed basis, historic or constitutionally, granting the state the power to aggregate people's location history?

Is the executive empowered to enforce laws? Is recording observations a function of law enforcement? Society recognizes things like "plain view" in that if an officer is legally in a place and can see illegal activity they may act on it. So it would follow that they can record their observations about suspected illegal activity and legal activity alike (because suspected illegal activity might actually be legal in fact).

So if police can observe things freely and they can record their observations, well can't police departments store and search through police records?

The state will take for itself power that the people have but do not wield.

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

#98

Post by nateb2022 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #97
nateb2022 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can the police department post police officers on every street corner and instruct them to record license plate numbers for every car they see? Would that constitute a search and if so a search of what exactly? Let me quote myself on this: > As Justice Sotomayor noted in United States v. Jones, logging a vehicle's public movements "reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious,…

> What's your proposed basis, historic or constitutionally, granting the state the power to aggregate people's location history? Is the executive empowered to enforce laws? Is recording observations a function of law enforcement? Society recognizes things like "plain view" in that if an officer is legally in a place and can see illegal activity they may act on it. So it would follow that they can record their observa…

> So if police can observe things freely and they can record their observations, well can't police departments store and search through police records?

This is unnecessarily reductive; if we reduce all action enough we can justify anything as simply continuous 1 centimeter movement; e.g. grand theft would be innocently grasping an object in a store, and then a series of 1 centimeter movements which you could independently justify as "freedom to move."

We understand complex actions to have complex consequences, and the aggregation of vehicular data is itself a search, which by our laws requires a warrant. Jurisprudence evaluates the totality of an act and its consequences.

> The state will take for itself power that the people have but do not wield.

The Framers of the Constitution would understand this idea as tyranny.

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

#99

Post by mannanj »

kube-system wrote: post #62
mannanj wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whose vehicle though? I think you should look legally at the distinction between ownership and use. Do you need to register your friends vehicles if you drive them for a weekend and trigger an in-state registration requirement (i.e. California as one of the comments mentioned)

Can't logically be true right?

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

#100

Post by kube-system »

mannanj wrote: post #99
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whose vehicle though? I think you should look legally at the distinction between ownership and use. Do you need to register your friends vehicles if you drive them for a weekend and trigger an in-state registration requirement (i.e. California as one of the comments mentioned) Can't logically be true right?

When it comes to paying tax, ownership/use/residency is up for examination by tax authorities. They will make a determination based on their evidence and if you don't like it you can take it to tax court and you all can show a judge your evidence.
Post reply on HN