text0404

5 ms·

1.
by text0404 7d ago
Except what I'm discussing is why the court went with that decision and how that reasoning applies to modern technology like Flock cameras. Your original argument was that cameras are in public and location data is private and includes
2.
by text0404 7d ago
The legal reasoning I'm referring to is quite clear, even if it wasn't part of the court's final decision (it was part of the concurrence, though, which are also used in legal arguments): > A person does not surrender all
3.
by text0404 7d ago
You're focused on the narrowness of the final ruling and not the vast legal reasoning that led to it. Carpenter's reasoning concerning comprehensive records of an individual's movements (regardless of private or public) are r
4.
by text0404 7d ago
I'm not talking about the specific ruling, I'm quoting the justification that the justices used in coming to that ruling, which is extremely relevant to modern day surveillance and whether LE using surveillance cameras from a thir
5.
by text0404 7d ago
As I quoted before: > A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitut
6.
by text0404 7d ago
Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A
7.
by text0404 7d ago
I'm not claiming Jones held that cops need a warrant to visually follow someone on a public street. The point you're avoiding is that Carpenter expressly cited Jones for the proposition that people have a fourth amendment interest
8.
by text0404 7d ago
You're confusing the technology used in Jones with the principle Carpenter cited it for: a person can have a 4A privacy interest in the whole of their physical movements, including movements in public.
9.
by text0404 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. The fact that the data is owned by a private comp
10.
by text0404 7d ago
The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter . Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not au
11.
by text0404 7d ago
Just because the specific ALPR technology was not being litigated doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to similar technologies. At issue here is the government being able to monitor and track people in public, not that photogra
12.
by text0404 7d ago
They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search.
13.
by text0404 7d ago
> Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over The same amount that you do, dude. You're in every single one of these threads, and despite being proven wrong over and over again you keep being &q
14.
by text0404 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. So you're kind
15.
by text0404 7d ago
That precedence-setting decision would be Carpenter v US [1], which established that being in public does not automatically eliminate all fourth amendment protection, and the comprehensive nature of government surveillance can matter consti
16.
by text0404 7d ago
Law enforcement is using a third party (Flock) to get around constitutional requirements. A camera pointed at a public street isn't the same constitutional question as LE searching a persistent database to reconstruct someone's mo
17.
by text0404 7d ago
You keep missing that these aren't singular photographs. This isn't the 70s: these are persistent systems that aggregate video and photographs of everyone, tracking their movements over time. That is enough to make this constituti
18.
by text0404 7d ago
They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.
19.
by text0404 7d ago
Chatrie was not about the dragnet capturing people in private spaces. It established that LE acquisition and aggregation of location information can constitute a fourth amendment search even when the observations are made in public.
20.
by text0404 7d ago
They weren't connected to nationwide databases which automatically record, store, and aggregate individuals' movements. Not constitutionally equivalent.
21.
by text0404 7d ago
... and you need a warrant to surveil individuals? And they have to be suspected of crimes?
22.
by text0404 7d 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 p
23.
by text0404 7d ago
Chatrie held that the government conducted a fourth amendment search when it got the location data, even though the data was held by a third party. The reasoning was that the data revealed Chatrie's physical movements, not that Google
24.
by text0404 7d ago
Chatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself. Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead a
25.
by text0404 7d 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.
26.
by text0404 7d ago
ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-
27.
by text0404 7d ago
Those photographs go into a searchable database.
28.
by text0404 7d ago
Sure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment.
29.
by text0404 7d ago
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.
30.
by text0404 9d ago
This is a western take on the situation. Another take would be that the US/Israel are the largest force for destabilization in the middle east (see also Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran itself from 1953-onward). >

More ›