‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

483 points · 267 comments · sbulaev

  1. joshheitzman · · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that's what they are. But does that mean are they breaking federal law or unconstitutional? I believe we've been told by the courts repeatedly that we should have no expectation of privacy out in public.
    1. moralestapia · · focus · HN ↗
      No expectation of privacy does not mean you can follow someone around all day and keep a log of what they do, which is essentially what this thing does.

      Over the course of a days/weeks, the places one visits, roads you drive on, etc. those things should definitely be private.

      1. satvikpendem · · focus · HN ↗
        Isn't that what paparazzi do already? Seems like you can do that.
      2. joshheitzman · · focus · HN ↗
        Isn't that exactly what a stakeout is? Or an undercover operation?

        I didn't search for undercover, but I can find nothing about a warrant being required for a stakeout in the US (and numerous results saying no warrant is required).

        1. SonOfKyuss · · focus · HN ↗
          Sure, and if the same level of effort were required to get the same amount of information, this probably wouldn’t even be up for discussion. But now we have technology to basically stake out every single citizen at any time with just a few mouse clicks. We can’t just pretend those things are equal.
      3. Dma54rhs · · focus · HN ↗
        Why doesn't it mean that?
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.