Manuel_D

5 ms·

1.
by Manuel_D 5d ago
> Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. It's legal until your expected Supreme Court decision lands. This is just another wa
2.
by Manuel_D 6d ago
> companies like Palantir and Anduril are clearly pursuing political objectives, including subverting governance by creating tools which set the frame and context that governance happens in. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Ho
3.
by Manuel_D 6d ago
The US stopped countless wars from starting in the first place due to deterrence. Look at Ukraine to see what happens to a country that isn't part of an alliance like NATO.
4.
by Manuel_D 6d ago
There's a big difference between saying "Flock and other ALPR tech is illegal" And "Flock and other ALPR tech is legal. But it's my personal prediction that some future Supreme Court decision will make them illegal.
5.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
> The court doesn't agree, and they've explicitly pointed out that 4A still applies when someone is being monitored and tracked in public. Only when that tracking is done via cell phone location information. The Carpenter decis
6.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
If it's not in the Supreme Court's decision then it doesn't matter as far as the law goes. At this point you've basically admitted that the Carpenter decision doesn't have any bearing on Flock, you're just tryi
7.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
As I've repeatedly explained, the Carpenter decision was narrowly scoped to cell phone location data. The decision did not do anything to restrict other forms of monitoring. The idea that Carpenter restricts governments' ability t
8.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
> No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time). And this is just a factually
9.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Except the narrowness of the final ruling is exactly what makes it not impact the legality of Flock. It doesn't matter whether you think the courts decision should be extended to cameras - your opinion doesn't decide the law, th
10.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
And the point remains, regardless of semantic quibbling: a checkpoint is probably the least surprising place to encounter surveillance. Arguably, it's the whole point of a checkpoint to surveil, "checking" in your terminolo
11.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.
12.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not affect other method
13.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
> The data includes "private movements" which is why it's unconstitutional (the SC said aggregation of public data can impel privacy concerns) But does it? You keep insisting this is the case, but your attempts to back u
14.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the police access
15.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Seattle is one of the wealthiest metros in the country, with expansive social programs. It's the last place where you can try and blame crime on deprivation.
16.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
> Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. ...and including movements occurring in priv
17.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements . Your phone's GPS data doesn'
18.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Again, you keep citing decisions without bothering to understand the context behind the. For instance, "To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protec
19.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
If you owned property, or otherwise got permission from the property owners to put cameras there, then yes.
20.
by Manuel_D 7d 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 i
21.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all.
22.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
I had already addressed your same points an hours earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49629142 And yet you still start yet another thread insisting th
23.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
> The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. Specifically, t
24.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Carpenter v. United States was about the government accessing telecommunications data. This is not public information, location data also tracks people's movements on private property. Just like the other case you cited, Chatrie v. Uni
25.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?
26.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over? No, the putting public facing camera video into a database does not make it a search. The case you cited, Chatrie vs. United States, involved the government
27.
by Manuel_D 7d 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
28.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
And? These are still videos of people in public. This information is in plain view. You keep insisting that if you aggregate public information it somehow becomes private information, but that's not true unless the Supreme Court makes
29.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
But the observations in the Chatrie case weren't made in public. This was private information that only Google had access to, and law enforcement went and demanded that Google hand over that private information. By contrast, a person c
30.
by Manuel_D 7d ago
You don't need a warrant to record people in public. You keep throwing around the term "surveil" as though this is a singular activity. Do the police need a warrant to search your house or car? Yes. Do they need a warrant to

More ›