This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Lol if they don’t track people what the fuck are they even for?
Isn’t it like their whole sales pitch?
Benn Jordan did that months ago, not that it'll get acknowledged beyond FBI harassing him.
It's a patriotic act defending the 4th amendment to destroy those cameras.. it's in the freaking constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not sure public video recording amounts to a search and seizure. Is there case precedent establishing specifically that?
Its not "Search and Siezure" it is "Searches" and "Siezures". It violates the "Searches" part and the only way to work around is a warrant. A "search" is not only to search a person's house, but to subject a person to being followed and tracked day in and out needs a Judicial Warrant in most circumstances because you are violating the subjects right to privacy.
In the case of Flock they could set up cameras and have trained people watch them, and that is iffy at that, but once it is autommatically stored and cataloged everything everyone does and where they go, and can be used to unwind everything a person does quite litterally like Big Brother, and then you can put that in a data base where the police can litterally do fishing expeditions after the fact to make a case, or the AI can just spit out a name that got a well known car reviewer seconds away from getting his life ended by a police officer because it mixed his plate with annother, that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
I is like the famous saying of the head of the Polish Secret Police "You show me the man and I will show you the crime". It is because of this you have a right to not talk to the police and legally speaking any little thing you say or respond to "...can and will be used against you in a court of law.". If you try hard enough you can come up with multiple crimes for anyone.
It's stalking, not merely "public". "Public" does not imply a panopticon!
It applies to the government too, just like how companies can fire you and discriminate against you for speech, but the government can't (except if you say "I am going to kill the president of the United States" or if you say "you should kill the president of the United States." Both of which are illegal. Very illegal. Super duper illegal you should never say them.)
However it gets muddy when you're hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?
Excellent wkuk ref
That didn't address my point.
Is public video recording considered a 4th amendment violation?
Because that's what the Flock cameras do.
The rest of what makes Flock... is processing after the fact. And that analysis is effectively the same as what any social media or advertising company does when they build a profile on you. Actually basically any tech company nowadays is making a profile for you and attaching it to whatever data they can get their hands on, and usually selling access to their data on you as well. And those are clearly considered legal. Whether they should be is a different topic.
Your question is what is not decided yet. The merger of surveillance capitalism and the federal government is something warned about decades ago and now it's here. It takes years for this stuff to make it's way through courts and up to SCOTUS (assuming it will get there).
Your point makes sense because a ruling against flock could also impact the tech companies that have been doing invasive tracking, arguably even more invasive, for decades. What makes flock different though are the direct contracts with governments.
There is a recent case that may support all this being illegal. SCOTUS recently ruled governments using geofencing data does constituent a search and therefore 4th amendment protections.
Are you arguing that this is fine, or acceptable?
I don't think anyone here is arguing. This is just what a complex conversation looks like.
"Proved them wrong" implies they made a mistake. "Showed they were lying" would be more accurate.
I hear those cameras can't stand strong wind's sheer forces. Such a shame
The evil company lied? I'm SHOCKED! But not really shocked at all
The land of the free! I would have assumed that being barred from doing something as an agency would be just as barred buying the same information or service from a contractor. Luckily all these rights are defended by the Supreme Court of America.
Do the machines they send all the data to, track people?
They record video what happens or who uses it after the fact is something else entirely.
