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. windexh8er · 1791067593 · focus · HN ↗

      From others. Not mass surveillance by a private corporation.

      Otherwise maybe I'll just set up my own cameras in public locations. If the police want the data they can pay per minute of footage. I'll let them search for metadata and tell them if footage matches with no visibility to the footage until after payment. If they search for something and don't purchase but come back for it - it's then increased pricing. If this is all public space and we can all build these systems because there's no expectation of privacy then all is fair in access to public right of way along roads.

      1. hackyhacky · 1791069321 · focus · HN ↗

         > Not mass surveillance by a private corporation.

         When that corporation is performing contracted work for the government, they act as the government's agent, making them subject to the same restrictions regarding civil rights as the government itself.

         1. windexh8er · 1791088412 · focus · HN ↗

            They're not operating on behalf of a local government if they're selling the public data of that local government to others. This is not a simple "contracted work" by a local government. Please don't normalize this as something it's not.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.