Thread

1. joshheitzman · 1791066694 · 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. Waterluvian · 1791066858 · focus · HN ↗

      I’m no American but isn’t it a 4th Amendment issue, and the problem is how the various local, state, federal governments are using a private contractor (Flock) to do an end run around this by pretending that it’s no different from any private citizen recording another in a public space?

      1. LPisGood · 1791066939 · focus · HN ↗

         This has been allowed generally in US courts, to use private companies to collect data, etc.

         1. Waterluvian · 1791067027 · focus · HN ↗

            Is there a whole thing in the U.S. where it’s a no no with regards to cell data without a warrant? This feels like that.

            (bear with me, this all comes from random podcasting over the past decade)

            1. ranger_danger · 1791069192 · focus · HN ↗

               My understanding is they can get a current location with just a subpoena (not a warrant) already, but looking at a history of past locations to watch their movements constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant and probable cause.

               Originally the Third-party doctrine[1] also would allow searches that were otherwise illegal, but recently exceptions have been made for GPS/location history in the courts in recent years (Carpenter and Chatrie).

               [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Third-party_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Third-party_doctrine

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.