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. rglover · 1791068242 · focus · HN ↗

      > But does that mean are they breaking federal law or unconstitutional?

      I'd argue they break the fourth amendment:

      > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      What are "unreasonable searches" if not being under "indiscriminate mass surveillance?"

      1. joshheitzman · 1791069256 · focus · HN ↗

         The US constitution is silent on surveillance. I seriously doubt anyone from the 1700s would consider watching people in public spaces to be a search. Automating watching people doesn't seem like it transforms watching into to a search either.

         1. istjohn · 1791070144 · focus · HN ↗

            There's also: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

            1. joshheitzman · 1791070775 · focus · HN ↗

               That sentence may as well not even be there for all the good it does. Even the enumerated rights keep getting whittled down.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.