Thread

Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

483 points · 267 comments · sbulaev

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. saghm · 1791067560 · focus · HN ↗
  I think you're greatly oversimplifying what courts have actually ruled on this over the years. Off the top of my head, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that wiretapping a public pay phone in a booth is unconstitutional[1], and rulings from lower courts on using Stingrays without warrants are a mixed bag[2]. I don't think there's anything close to a broad precedent that the right to privacy evaporates the moment you go out in public.
  [1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States [2]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_use_in_United_States_law_enforcement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_use_in_United_States_...
  1. joshheitzman · 1791070387 · focus · HN ↗
    This looks like the key part for the first link:
    My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.
    For this case the guy was inside a phone booth rather than out in the open.
    There's nothing from SCOTUS on stingrays, but I looked at one federal case and the data being collected was referred to as a document, so that's where the 4th was found to apply.
    In turn I don't think I've greatly oversimplified anything.
    kennywinker · 1791070715 · focus · HN ↗
    > For this case the guy was inside a phone booth rather than out in the open.
    Is warrantless wiretapping of open-air payphones legal? Based on the TV show the wire, it's not.
    iamnothere · 1791076290 · focus · HN ↗
    TV show plots usually aren’t admissible as precedent.
    kennywinker · 1791079222 · focus · HN ↗
    Weird, TV show hosts seem to be admissible as presidents.
    iamnothere · 1791136988 · focus · HN ↗
    Cute joke but it doesn’t change the facts here. Please don’t assume that fiction has any bearing on the legal landscape.
    kennywinker · 1791139697 · focus · HN ↗
    The Wire was notoriously well reviewed by lawyers.
    <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/patriot-powers-roving-wiretaps" rel="nofollow">https://www.cato.org/blog/patriot-powers-roving-wiretaps
    > For an ordinary non-roving wiretap, that means you show a judge the “nexus” between evidence of a crime and a particular “place” (a phone line, an e‑mail address, or a physical location you want to bug). You will often have a named target, but you don’t need one: If you have good evidence gang members are meeting in some location or routinely using a specific payphone to plan their crimes, you can get a warrant to bug it without necessarily knowing the names of the individuals who are going to show up. On the other hand, though, you do always need that criminal nexus: No bugging Tony Soprano’s AA meeting unless you have some reason to think he’s discussing his mob activity there. Since places and communications facilities may be used for both criminal and innocent persons, the officer monitoring the facility is only supposed to record what’s pertinent to the investigation.
    iamnothere · 1791143289 · focus · HN ↗
    I apologize, I misread your comment and thought you were saying that warrantless roving wiretaps were allowed, and your evidence was that the show mentioned it. You actually said they were not allowed which is correct. I regret the error.
    I’m used to people citing fiction to back up poor arguments, not correct positions, which may be why I misread it. In fact this may be the first time I’ve seen it done this way.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.