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. helterskelter2 · 1791067154 · focus · HN ↗

            There may be a solid legal argument that since Flock is operating hand in glove with the government that they effectively are the government within the context of 4A. IMHO, it's not out of the realm of possibility that courts reexamine the government's ability to buy up private data which they would normally be precluded from collecting, and establish limits on their ability to do so.

            1. ratmice · 1791069779 · focus · HN ↗

               This is a good point, especially since it appears that the access flock given is basically reserved for the government. For instance we can't buy from flock a boyfriend stalking pass. The offerings aren't really in line with what flock provides HOAs and private companies...

               1. zhivota · 1791074765 · focus · HN ↗

                  This provides an interesting avenue for getting the law changed. If there is no expectation to privacy in public, there should be nothing stopping someone from renting space to install cameras all around their town and selling access to "where are your representatives right now" data feeds.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.