Thread

1. charcircuit · 1791067301 · focus · HN ↗

   What you do on public roads is public.

   The idea that law enforcement tapping into existing law enforcement knowledge constitutes as a search of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not logically follow for me. It is a search of law enforcements own property.

   1. slowin · 1791068590 · focus · HN ↗

      > It is a search of law enforcements own property.

      The roads are not law enforcement's property and my private car on a public road is private property that requires a warrant to search. These things should be totally banned, but even your argument is wrong since Flocks don't mask just the road, they record everything in their field of view.

      1. charcircuit · 1791069633 · focus · HN ↗

         >The roads are not law enforcement's property

         I was referring data as the property. Accessing a public fact of your car is not the same as actually searching through a car.

         >they record everything in their field of view.

         And those areas are still part of the public.

         1. slowin · 1791070665 · focus · HN ↗

            Given that the roads are not law enforcement's property, and in fact public property, they would require public approval and voted on legislation for the police to install cameras on them.

            > And those areas are still part of the public.

            No, it's almost exclusively private land.

            1. charcircuit · 1791073690 · focus · HN ↗

               Basically, anyone is allowed to record what is in public view without getting any kind of permission ahead of time.

               1. iamnothere · 1791076833 · focus · HN ↗

                  Courts and the law have disagreed with this in the past, see for instance stalking laws. If it’s possible to criminalize individual stalking, it’s possible to criminalize mass stalking.

                  1. charcircuit · 1791087819 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's against the first amendment to criminalize recording someone so eventually such laws will be struck down.

                     1. iamnothere · 1791137471 · focus · HN ↗

                        Really? You think anti-stalking laws will be struck down?

                        Is this something you’re in favor of?

         2. 0xbadcafebee · 1791074334 · focus · HN ↗

            The point of these lawsuits is that they don't have the right to search the data they have now, and possibly don't even have a right to have that data. The law says they need a good reason to search not just your property, but for information about you that isn't necessarily your property. Searching where you go 24/7 is a search, just like searching the phone company for what phone numbers you call is a search. In each case they are looking for information about you that they don't have a right to have without a very good reason.

            1. charcircuit · 1791088165 · focus · HN ↗

               We are talking about reasonable searching then. Police do go searching 24/7. They are called patrol units and they are active looking in public for crime. Just because there is technology doing the patrol and remember what is seen that doesn't change anything. Technology is making law enforcement more efficient. Instead of having to scale enforcement by hiring more humans, we can now purchase technology instead.

               1. 0xbadcafebee · 1791090986 · focus · HN ↗

                  Law is more complicated than that. Constitutional rights trump everything else. You have a right to be protected from unreasonable search, more than the police have the right to track your movements at all times for no particular reason. If what they do violates your constitutional right, it's illegal.
      2. sippingabonedry · 1791071481 · focus · HN ↗

         > they record everything in their field of view

         Like all the millions of traffic cameras, dashcams, smartphones, and everyone's eyeballs?

         1. slowin · 1791071657 · focus · HN ↗

            Traffic cameras certainly have the same issues, but the others aren't aggregated and searchable by the police, they're for personal use.
   2. nkrisc · 1791068972 · focus · HN ↗

      It’s public, but that does not necessarily imply that I will be surveilled at all times by the state while out in public.

      1. charcircuit · 1791069667 · focus · HN ↗

         It does not imply that, but it does imply that you do not have control over the distribution of facts of what happens there.

         1. macintux · 1791072924 · focus · HN ↗

            I don’t have control over my freedom of speech, either, but I still appreciate it.

            Just because the founding fathers 250 years ago couldn’t conceive of a panopticon doesn’t mean that we have to accept it today.

         2. nkrisc · 1791073864 · focus · HN ↗

            I believe the constitution says otherwise.
   3. greggoB · 1791071944 · focus · HN ↗

      > It is a search of law enforcements own property

      The wording here seems problematic. Why is law enforcement entitled to this degree of access to public surveillance as their "property"? That word strongly implies it is theirs to do with as they wish - I don't see how that would be a desirable state of affairs.

   4. user3939382 · 1791072689 · focus · HN ↗

      Omniscience outside private property is “existing law enforcement knowledge”?
   5. simoncion · 1791103692 · focus · HN ↗

      > What you do on public roads is public.

      You seem to be paraphrasing the US v. Knotts decision. Read pages 30 and 31 of the document found here [0]. If you have fifteen-to-thirty minutes free, you should really read the whole thing.

      [0] &lt;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;storage.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.oknd.76981&#x2F;gov.uscourts.oknd.76981.62.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;storage.courtlistener.com&#x2F;recap&#x2F;gov.uscourts.oknd.76...&gt;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.