6 ms·

The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the governm

The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment.

Manuel_D 8d ago
The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.
- text0404 8d ago
  The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.
  - Manuel_D 8d ago
    Whether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house.
    - text0404 8d ago
      But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.
      - Manuel_D 8d ago
        No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect?
        text0404 8d ago
        They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.
        Manuel_D 8d ago
        If they're only tracking your movements in public, the no they do not. Again, you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect. They do not prohibit the police from surveilling or tracking you, they only control how the police is able to conduct that surveillance. If the police want to search your house or car, they need a warrant or at least probable cause for the latter. If they want to photograph you in public, they do not.
        croon 7d ago
        IANAL disclaimer. Police do need a warrant to place a GPS device on your vehicle. Data continuity is a function of data point frequency [0]. If all public space (and some participating private space) is monitored, the practical difference between a GPS device and a retroactive dragnet system disappears. You are correct that police do not require a warrant to follow someone around in public, but these systems aren't that, and in practice much closer to the GPS tracking, which does require a warrant. It's unclear without trying this further in court which this should qualify as. IMO: If the system has seen me exit the public space outside my home, or work, or someone elses home, or a store, or whevever, the system knows where I am at all points in time, like a GPS, with very little exception. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect
        Manuel_D 7d ago
- UncleMeat 8d ago
  > The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. It is true that a single police officer can post up somewhere and scan license plates without a warrant. The difference here is scale. The question of whether scale affects a "reasonable expectation of privacy" has never been addressed by the supreme court, though it has been raised before and discussed in concurring opinions.
  - Manuel_D 8d ago
    > This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers things like restrooms. Not highways, streets, parking lots, etc. This isn't relevant for Flock.
    - UncleMeat 8d ago
      "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers whatever the public believes is reasonable. The original case creating this doctrine was about phone booths.

Manuel_D 8d ago

The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.

text0404 8d ago
The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.
- Manuel_D 8d ago
  Whether or not the government needs a warrant to surveil someone depends on how the government is conducting that surveillance. The government does, for instance, need a warrant to wiretap you. They do not need a warrant to record people in public spaces. Nor do they need a warrant to, say, photograph the exterior of your house.
  - text0404 8d ago
    But they need a warrant to follow me around, record my movements, put them into a database which is searchable by other law enforcement. They're not taking a single photograph of a car, they're creating a database of movement of people who have not committed crimes.
    - Manuel_D 8d ago
      No, they do not need a warrant to follow you in public. What more is there to say, besides that you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect?
      - text0404 8d ago
        They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.
        Manuel_D 8d ago
        If they're only tracking your movements in public, the no they do not. Again, you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect. They do not prohibit the police from surveilling or tracking you, they only control how the police is able to conduct that surveillance. If the police want to search your house or car, they need a warrant or at least probable cause for the latter. If they want to photograph you in public, they do not.
        croon 7d ago
        IANAL disclaimer. Police do need a warrant to place a GPS device on your vehicle. Data continuity is a function of data point frequency [0]. If all public space (and some participating private space) is monitored, the practical difference between a GPS device and a retroactive dragnet system disappears. You are correct that police do not require a warrant to follow someone around in public, but these systems aren't that, and in practice much closer to the GPS tracking, which does require a warrant. It's unclear without trying this further in court which this should qualify as. IMO: If the system has seen me exit the public space outside my home, or work, or someone elses home, or a store, or whevever, the system knows where I am at all points in time, like a GPS, with very little exception. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect
        Manuel_D 7d ago
UncleMeat 8d ago
> The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. It is true that a single police officer can post up somewhere and scan license plates without a warrant. The difference here is scale. The question of whether scale affects a "reasonable expectation of privacy" has never been addressed by the supreme court, though it has been raised before and discussed in concurring opinions.
- Manuel_D 8d ago
  > This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers things like restrooms. Not highways, streets, parking lots, etc. This isn't relevant for Flock.
  - UncleMeat 8d ago
    "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers whatever the public believes is reasonable. The original case creating this doctrine was about phone booths.