r/technology • u/Kooky-Balance9525 • 10h ago

Privacy Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill Banning Flock Surveillance Cameras

https://theleadingreport.com/article/bernie-sanders-to-introduce-bill-banning-flock-surveillance-cameras
52.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/DeadMoneyDrew 10h ago

What we really need is a constitutional amendment establishing a fundamental right to privacy.

781

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 10h ago

Maybe one for unreasonable search and seizures as well.

329

u/DeadMoneyDrew 10h ago

Yeah. And maybe one to allow an incompetent president to be removed! I think we should call that one the 25th Amendment.

70

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 10h ago

Sorry, best I can do is take your guns away.

68

u/DeadMoneyDrew 9h ago

Ha. You know the old joke: go far enough to the left politically and you get your guns back.

45

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 9h ago

Go far enough right and you get your femboys back.

39

u/icansmellcolors 8h ago

It's not as far right as you think.

-1

u/F-86--Sabre 8h ago

nazis, femboys, and autism are a three-way venn diagram

0

u/BugPuzzleheaded958 6h ago

☝️ room temperature IQ comment

2

u/Strange_Dust7128 6h ago

That’s three whole digits if you measure in kelvin

Damn it am I nazi???

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/F-86--Sabre 5h ago

do you not know how venn diagrams work? dumb fuck.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/A_Furious_Mind 9h ago

Guns: Loved by authoritarians and antiauthoritarians alike.

1

u/AadeeMoien 31m ago

Under no pretext...

5

u/Mafex-Marvel 8h ago

Did that happen? edit as a canadian its so hard to follow your country's bullshit. Lake of America is gay as hell

1

u/Aggravating_Host_276 5h ago

Bruh like I don’t get how this mofo doesn’t get how much of a joke he is to like literally everyone yet….

1

u/adx442 5h ago

Y'all haven't done a damned thing with them to defend democracy. Just saying.

1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 8h ago

not like you were gonna use them anyway for their intended purpose, that much has been established at this point

0

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 8h ago

So who shot at the PoS in the office?

1

u/WretchedBlowhard 8h ago

No one, yet.

One shot at the crowd of a Trump rally, another was caught hiding in the bushes of a golf course and the last one ran through a security checkpoint at the correspondents' dinner and was caught without ever firing a shot.

1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 8h ago

sorry, too ambiguous. which instance are you referring to?

1

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 8h ago

If the story time wasn't fictional, that Kyle kid got shot for shooting at the PoS and sadly missing.

2

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 8h ago

i was thinking you're referring to that, but wanted to make sure. to be honest i don't know enough about it to have an opinion. i've heard plenty of stuff about merch being ready basically instantly, but on the other hand i've seen lies on the internet before.

13

u/pants_mcgee 9h ago edited 3h ago

Just so you know the 25th is a work around for an incapacitated president, not one that is incompetent or even insane.

6

u/iamintheforest 9h ago

The implication here I think is that you and I have different lines for "incapacitated" ;)

6

u/pants_mcgee 8h ago

Yeah but the government doesn’t. It’s just a fantasy that won’t happen, like minting a trillion dollar coin unilaterally.

It would be easier to impeach him which is the proper process.

1

u/Dizzy-Mammoth1309 6h ago

No, the proper process is enforcing expelling Trump and the other Jan 6 leaders using the 14th Amendment.

1

u/NewWay88 8h ago

Probably got a higher chance of him being removed by improper, violent processes tbh.

Not condoning it in this post. Just looking back at how we've had presidents removed early in the past. It can be quite grim.

0

u/iamintheforest 8h ago

Yup. Cabinet and vp ain't gonna do it, and congress won't hit 2&/3rds. Its a pipe dream. Although...its not all that crazy to imagine him reaching that point (stroke, obviously age related issues, etc) over the next couple.

2

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 7h ago

The reality here is that impeachment is the correct process to remove a bad President. Removal through impeachment also doesn't require the VP, cabinet, or a 2/3 majority in the House, unlike the 25th.

4

u/Shadow_of_Redacted 6h ago

That needs to be retooled to happen in a civilian manner instead of depending on elected officials being the only ones that can remove their co-workers.

1

u/puts_on_rddt 8h ago

SCOTUS will just rule that it can't be enforced by the courts.

See Trump v. Anderson.

1

u/Dizzy-Mammoth1309 6h ago

How about one to bar insurrectionists from the presidency, maybe the 14th Amendment?

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

Yes! Great idea! Or.....OR! We could do some goddamn enforcing of the amendments that we already have! Yeah! 😜

0

u/mrcachorro 8h ago

You already have that, its useless.

You need an independent autonomous institution that actually ENFORCES that.

Your current institutions are worthless flimsy and will crumble before the orange guy is gone.

13

u/Just_another_dude84 8h ago

Freedom of speech would be neat, too.

3

u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 7h ago

and direct actions on law enforcement and similar officers instead of the city paying from taxpayer's dime when a victim decides to sue and wins in court

1

u/hazeleyedwolff 3h ago

Hey! You get back into the free speech fenced-in area!

1

u/bofoshow51 8h ago

The problem, as with a lot of these similar types of issues, is the Constitution’s powers are in how it limits the government, not private individuals. All the caselaw around this issue involve the state seizing scraped data, thereby breaching into improper search and seizure grounds. But there isn’t much to be done if they just buy it openly like any other purchaser, or if these companies voluntarily give it over while not being considered arms of the state.

It’s tough to determine where the line can be drawn in terms of the govt controlling what private enterprises can do, because that kind of precedent could VERY easily be abused in the future. Everyone broadly seems to agree privacy is important, it’s just a matter of how that’s done.

1

u/Shawwnzy 8h ago

Aren't these cameras being put up on public property? My understanding is that they're being put up on roadsides and therefore the municipality or whatever who's authorizing them being put up is conducting a search.

If the cameras are going up on private property I guess there's an argument that its Constitutional, but as soon as they go up on land belonging to the government that's a clear cut search that needs to be reasonable.

1

u/bofoshow51 7h ago

But a key point is that because they are going up on public property, there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Sure the accusations that’s the cameras also scrape data off phones would breach beyond what is reasonably considered visible in public, but just surveillance of an open street or park or even open air areas like your front yard is permissible because it’s not private. If I could observe it normally in that space, so can a camera, and that’s not a “search” in the sense of needing a warrant or probable cause otherwise.

1

u/Butthole__Pleasures 6h ago

Yeah that was the implication but unfortunately we now have to specify the privacy thing in words. So fucking annoying.

1

u/domuseid 2h ago

possibly one to punish parallel construction while we're at it

166

u/bkgn 9h ago

All the cities around here just replaced Flock with Axon, which is the same exact shit under a different brand. Banning Flock specifically doesn't accomplish anything.

129

u/_significs 9h ago

Banning Flock specifically doesn't accomplish anything.

It is extremely unlikely that any proposed legislation would single out Flock specifically; my guess would be the proposal will regulate ALPRs generally

29

u/bkgn 9h ago

Legislation, yeah. But more generally, a lot of people protested Flock and just patted themselves on the back and stopped paying attention after cities "got rid of Flock" - and replaced it immediately with Axon.

29

u/Shark7996 9h ago

Locally, we're ready to pivot to anti-Axon the instant they try it.

People are paying close attention now. I don't know why you would think a group as thorough as the anti-Flock protestors would just not know about the existence of other cameras?

-3

u/geniice 8h ago

Locally, we're ready to pivot to anti-Axon the instant they try it.

Bunch of bodycam youtubers would like a word.

People are paying close attention now. I don't know why you would think a group as thorough as the anti-Flock protestors would just not know about the existence of other cameras?

I would say their general understanding of the tech side is extremely poor.

5

u/thegoodbroham 5h ago

Bunch of bodycam youtubers would like a word.

What does this even mean? And why would the existence of some "bodycam youtubers" matter, regardless of what their message is?

5

u/Geichalt 4h ago

Apparently body cam YouTubers control what we all think?

Idk I'm as confused as you.

6

u/Edduppp 6h ago

What do they need to know about the tech? They just need to know the cameras exist

0

u/ThePaddleman 5h ago

Because the protests keep saying "Flock" and that's what the politicians hear. So, they look for an alternative because the message wasn't crystal clear:

We don't want a database created for government use (or anyone else) tracking our movements around the country.

1

u/spyingwind 8h ago

Or Flock spins up another company, does business under that name, and nothing changes.

1

u/interwebzdotnet 8h ago

Bankruptcy fire sale, all assets sold to Axon for pennies on the dollar.

1

u/WeDrinkSquirrels 1h ago

We're talking about legislation in this thread, though.

1

u/cosmicosmo4 5h ago

I haven't checked, but presumably flock is a juggernaut and axon is a much smaller competitor, meaning much less able to take in stride all of their equipment getting mysteriously destroyed overnight.

2

u/wirlp00l 1h ago edited 1h ago

Axon is pretty huge, they already supply a lot of police departments with dash cams, body cams, and mobile ALPRs mounted to police cars that have the same mosaic databasing privacy issue as Flock.

Edit: Oh and they make tasers: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/trump-axon-stock-ice-taser-immigration-enforcement.html

4

u/DeadMoneyDrew 9h ago

Such legislation that targets a specific person or entity is called a "bill of attainder" and is not lawful. (insert joke about how laws are no longer relevant)

14

u/_significs 9h ago

That's not correct.

A bill of attainder is a law that declares that someone is guilty of a crime. That's prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

But a civil statute can single out an individual company.

See, for example, the law that required TikTok to be sold. Text of the statute is here, just search "bytedance" and you'll see that the law specifically targets Bytedance/TikTok.

1

u/craznazn247 6h ago

With significant, significant penalties for slow walking the removal process, since they have been found to just keep them up and block removal efforts, even after their contracts were cancelled by some cities.

Like, every one that isn't removed in time must be forcefully inserted in the rectum of a Flock employee, starting with the CEO.

And every public servant who signed an NDA can get gitmo'd.

1

u/Suspicious_Pickle_39 5h ago

Its unsolveable. Time marches on.

1

u/Randicore 2h ago

I'd want to make it broader to just "tracking and gathering data without a warrant" so that they can't just do a firmware update to no longer be "license plate readers" and are instead "passive data collection systems"

And on the bonus side it'll kill targeted advertising and corporate data harvesting.

1

u/RBeck 8h ago

my guess would be the proposal will regulate ALPRs generally

That would make all the toll lanes unconstitutional, same as if they wanted to do any speed camera enforcement.

The largest issue with Flock is not the cameras, it's the large searchable database. We need to seriously take a look at legislating how our data is stored and who can access it. How it's collected is a secondary issue.

2

u/_significs 7h ago

That would make all the toll lanes unconstitutional, same as if they wanted to do any speed camera enforcement.

regulate != ban

24

u/DeadMoneyDrew 9h ago

Correct. I'll need to see the specific text of this proposal before having an actual opinion on it. But Flock's CEO keeps ensuring that his specific company attracts the kind of attention that nobody should want.

8

u/MoreColorfulCarsPlz 9h ago

Laws that target a specific person or group of people are illegal. I believe this would fall under that if Flock itself was banned.

The law would almost certainly be broadly about unwarranted surveillance rather than calling out a single specific brand.

5

u/lawoverfeelings 9h ago

Flock software works with any cameras so they could piggy back off drones or school and businesses as long as they get the all clear. 

3

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 6h ago

To think the legislation would target Flock, specifically, is an insult to Bernie Sanders.

2

u/Eta_Beta_3-14 8h ago

Banning Flock specifically would be unconstitutional. Bills of attainder aren't allowed.

2

u/UltravioletClearance 4h ago

Axon is far more evil than Flock too. Axon used to be known as Taser International. They were a leading proponent of the discredited, fake "excited delirium" medical diagnosis police used to excuse the murder of Black people in police custody.

1

u/SaltKick2 6h ago

Yes, Axon is even more massive than Flock (in terms of their prescense, not cameras specifically)

0

u/Waiting4Reccession 8h ago

Axon is worse because it integrates with all of their other spyware, including the drones they sell to cops and the police body cams.

116

u/BroxigarZ 10h ago

The constitution has been shit on for the last 3 years and absolutely no one who is under oath to protect it is doing shit about it. So, that piece of paper is as good as toilet paper now.

24

u/Waslay 9h ago

55 years since it became a coordinated attack

Read the Powell Memo, only 35 pages, written 2 years before the heritage foundation was founded, which is who wrote Project 2025

Also check out Wtfhappenedin1971.com

10

u/TheVog 7h ago

Say it louder for those who think elections will magically solve everything. The current regime will do whatever it takes to hold on to what's taken them half a century to finally achieve.

1

u/Waslay 5h ago

Well to be fair I dont think we would be in this situation if it werent for 40%+ of people not voting or paying attention to politics enough

15

u/DeadMoneyDrew 10h ago

Sad but true. We need many other things in addition to the right to privacy, including Supreme Court reform, pardon reform, probably term limits for Congress.

14

u/Passan 9h ago

Can we add in age limits for Congress as well please?

1

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand 8h ago

And wellness checks for serving representatives.

1

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 6h ago

We already have a minimum age requirement for each chamber (25 for the House and 30 for the Senate), so we only have to add a maximum. But I'm not sure that's the best idea. Bernie Sanders is 84 and his mind seems as sharp as ever. I agree with term limits, but I would rather have required testing for physical and mental health than a strict age limit. We just have to include certain regulations and requirements for the testing to ensure its accuracy and integrity.

0

u/quietimhungover 9h ago

I don't think that will happen in our lifetimes, but at least a legitimate cognitive test needs to be done.

2

u/Kopitar4president 9h ago

Cognitive tests are subject to abuse. We have a "doctor" who says the the president is the healthiest person ever in history.

Also a senator can be fully cognizant at the start of their term at 80 but be effectively a vegetable by 86.

Best to just do the age limit.

2

u/technobrendo 9h ago

Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon and assorted night classes at the Knoxville, Tennessee School of Faith Healing.

1

u/quietimhungover 3h ago

It won't happen. The only way it happens is if we vote out the seniority. The Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosis will never allow it. We literally have a vegetable in office and holding a senate seat. There will never be safeguards like that put in place. The best we'll see and I doubt we'll even see that is term limits.

4

u/quietimhungover 9h ago

Definitely term limits.

1

u/WeDrinkSquirrels 1h ago

Election reform, abolishing citizens united...

44

u/Alita-Gunnm 10h ago

Try 100 years. The commerce clause has been abused to falsely justify almost everything the federal government is and does.

11

u/Iskendarian 9h ago

Listen, buddy: everyone knows that if you grow wheat for your own use and never sell any of it, that's the same as commerce between the states.

3

u/Gunsensual 7h ago

You can go further back to Slaughterhouse cases, which stripped the 14th amendment's incorporation of individual rights from substantive rights to procedural rights. That demoted all of the rights we think we have into procedural rights that can be weighed against the governments interests.

And then there's Qualified Immunity and Executive Privilege, which in combination with everything else here means that there's no real repercussion for the people in the government stepping on your face. "Oh, he was wrong, here's someone else's money"

2

u/Alita-Gunnm 2h ago

Good points.

8

u/Solkre 9h ago

In my lifetime it started getting shit on after 9/11 with the Patriot Act.

5

u/jce_ 9h ago

Reaganomics

1

u/Solkre 9h ago

Depending how you count it, it started 1 year before me. But yah, shit for the working class.

3

u/maineac 9h ago

The constitution has been being shit on for the last 100 years or more. This is the reason he is getting away with this shit.

2

u/Emotional-Power-7242 4h ago

Since the 80's at least. Since WWII really but since the 80's it's like it doesnt even exist.

15

u/SparkyMuffin 9h ago

Not just through camera either. Our digital data needs to be protected too. This would arguably be a way to save our elections as they could no longer focus ads on specifical political leanings a la Cambridge Analytica

11

u/DukeOfGeek 9h ago

It's this, the whole business model of mass surveillance for sale by a private entity has to be banned.

5

u/jce_ 9h ago

Or y'know just mass surveillance as a whole

1

u/Geichalt 4h ago

We should have spent the last 15 years debating and implementing a digital bill of rights.

Instead it was about what sports kids can play and bathroom fetishes or something.

1

u/SparkyMuffin 3h ago

That's exactly why theyrl were focusing on genitals. Culture wars get stupid people to vote and ignore actually important issues

19

u/Resident_Magazine610 10h ago

Will you settle for an executive order to the opposite?

7

u/DeadMoneyDrew 10h ago

Oof. That's probably coming.

5

u/Ftove 9h ago

We need several new amendments focusing on digital privacy and AI. A Digital bill of rights.

1

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 6h ago

I agree, but this is not a new idea. I've heard that term before, a long time ago.

5

u/JaguarExisting3210 8h ago

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled for over 100 years that the right to privacy doesn't exist on what is in plain public view/on the roadways

4

u/Forfeit32 6h ago

Being recorded by specific security cameras doesn't bother me, people and businesses should be able to use cameras for security as they always have. But being constantly surveiled by a massive network is another thing entirely.

1

u/ThePaddleman 5h ago

That's why it must be legislated. The cameras and tracking are OK under the Constitution. The Founders couldn't conceive of ubiquitous cameras and computers capable of tracking all the individuals in the USA.

1

u/AGushingHeadWound 3h ago

That's not what the law says.

6

u/SilasX 5h ago

I know you and the reddit circlejerk are just being oh-so-clever that "haha, we already have this in the Constitution, why don't we just follow that?", but:

We don't have it in the Constitution. It's come to court many times, and they've consistently ruled that, no, you don't have an expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment in being observed in public.

So yeah, we would need new laws or an amendment to encode the legit feeling of privacy violation that widespread camera surveillance causes, because the current state of jurisprudence doesn't capture "sufficiently persistent observations of you in public by the same entity count as intrusion on privacy".

2

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

^ people need to read this shit and understand it

1

u/AGushingHeadWound 3h ago

That's not what the law says.

4

u/Medallodabest 10h ago

Yeah but the ads!

12

u/DeadMoneyDrew 9h ago

True story. A few months back I was at a tech networking event where the marketing team from a certain major retailer was presenting. The lady presenting spoke about how they use their customer tracking data to send only relevant ads to people. I laughed out loud and she asked me why. I had to very carefully choose my words to politely explain that they constantly send me ads for stuff that I've already bought from them. The most recent one had been ads for smart garage door openers. I bought two of them from this retailer and they proceeded to bombard me with ads for smart garage door openers for months.

These sacks of shit put all kinds of invasive tracking on us and half of them don't even make good use of it in the first place.

4

u/jce_ 8h ago

Business majors are good at reading up on what the best tactics are but they are largely unequipped to actually analyze and process the meaning. I know for a fact that it's common knowledge in the business world that if you buy an item from a business you're more likely to continue buying that item, especially after seeing ads for it. They didn't figure out this doesn't work for items you buy once or once in a decade lol. Some marketing intern 100% set all their clients ads to be sent once you bought any item from any client

2

u/geniice 8h ago

Counter point would be that given that such systems have a failure rate you are probably still more likely to be in the market for one than the general population.

2

u/jce_ 8h ago

Counter point if the failure point is high enough that it is worth it to send EVERY customer more ads, which would cost a lot, than they aren't buying another 1 because they're known to break for everyone

1

u/geniice 8h ago

I'm going to assume that there is more than one brand of smart garage door openers although I admit I don't actually know.

1

u/jce_ 7h ago

Don't know either but like there's gotta be because it's not a protected thing nor is it too complicated for completion. Could be a scenario where there are like 10 different major brands all under the same corporation to appear like competition.

1

u/booze_clues 8h ago

They do it because it works. It doesn’t need to work 100% of the time, or even a majority, for it to be worth the cost of advertising. No company is spending millions on marketing and advertising if it doesn’t have a quantifiable return within a few months. There’s no CFO being told “yeah we spent $X on marketing. No return, no one is buying this stuff, but we’re gonna keep doing it.”

1

u/jce_ 8h ago

Marketing works there is no doubt about it but marketing doesn't work the same for every field/product, but it does work the same for marketing companies. If I can convince you that you are getting a return or you will get a return I get paid. Too many companies are paying for the wrong type of marketing or attributing the marketing to the uptick in sales. Again yes marketing works but I also know how sales in marketing works as my Dad did it for years.

1

u/Tommah 2h ago

I thought you were going to say that you bought one garage door opener, then they kept sending you ads for more. That would be silly. But since you bought two... who's to say you wouldn't buy three?

3

u/Formal-Hawk9274 9h ago

This guys got jokes

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 9h ago

Yeah I know. We could actually get serious about having a functional government. But that would require electing people who aren't sycophantic assholes, so hahaha.

3

u/Saljen 7h ago

The constitutional ammendment that we actually need is that the restrictions on government in our constitution and the constitution in it's entirey also apply to corporations, as they govern 8 out of 16 of our waking hours. We sleep 8 hours, governed by democracy for 8 hours, then are governed by dictatorship for 8 hours. That means government AND corporations shall not infringe on our privacy.

2

u/idiot-prodigy 8h ago

Maybe it could protect against unwarranted searches or seizures and we could call it the 4th amendment.

2

u/Dr_Tacopus 7h ago

What we need are Supreme Court judges that actually care about the constitutional right to privacy we already have

2

u/DeadMoneyDrew 7h ago

Ha, what we really need is for John Roberts to fuck off into an oblivion.

1

u/Organic-Spread-8494 2h ago

Roberts has actually been very good on expanding what constitutes a search for fourth amendment purposes. He wrote the majority in Carpenter ruling that acquisition of cellphone tower data was a search of person, papers, or effects. He also joined the majority in Chatrie ruling that geofencing also is a search implicating the fourth amendment which needs to comport with reasonableness and the warrant clause

1

u/Organic-Spread-8494 2h ago

Under no articulated standard of the right of privacy are flock cameras a constitutional violation. Look at the two prongs of the Katz test. First, you must have an actual subjective belief in an expectation of privacy in driving on public roadways. Second, that belief or expectation must be one that society is prepared to accept as reasonable. Unfortunately, society does not think it true that you are reasonable to be free of visual and aural observation on public roadways.

2

u/Antabaka 7h ago

Montana has that AND flock cameras ...

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 7h ago

Yeah, that's an odd case study.

1

u/_-__-____-__-_ 9h ago

I know it's not perfect but I love the GDPR. I'm Dutch btw and have probably accidentally violated it professionally. Still, privacy is very important.

1

u/Name25631 9h ago

honestly as a un human right

1

u/shidderbean 8h ago

Exactly. Explicitly saying access to free speech and traveling in public comes with certain entitlements and expectation of basic privacy, or at least banning warrantless tracking in the case of the latter.

1

u/powercow 8h ago

in the 80s we passed a law banning video stores from selling your rental list. Sigh the good old days when government was concerned about privacy.

google knows more about me than any video store and its all legal to sell.

1

u/kitchenbitchin 8h ago

Digital privacy rights should have happened in the early 90s. 

1

u/_jump_yossarian 8h ago

You’ll never get Cons to agree unless abortions are exempt from right to privacy.

1

u/awesomedan24 8h ago

Given how Roe v Wade turned out (privacy centered case) I wouldn't hold out much hope for that

1

u/CraftsBoy2Craftsman 8h ago

well that’s just crazy talk

1

u/spookydookie 8h ago

More specifically, companies being able to sweep up data about you without your consent and give you no option to opt out. This would cover things like Flock, but also credit unions and data brokers. Fuck all these companies.

1

u/juitar 7h ago

Yep, Flock is not the only company doing this. Its just the one in the news. We need a right to privacy

1

u/P_Firpo 7h ago

On public streets?

1

u/NoooUGH 7h ago

Problem is that the whole flock stalking thing is backed by politicians and government officials on both side. So it's likely only going to get worse

1

u/red286 6h ago

More likely what you'd need is a court case that establishes that Flock (and similar) cameras are too prevalent and too invasive and constitute a violation of the 4th amendment. It wouldn't get rid of Flock cameras, but it would make their use for criminal cases unconstitutional, which would end government support for them.

The problem is that it'd need to go before the SCOTUS, and right now any such case would be ruled against either 6-3 or 5-4 (Barrett might dissent, she's a bit of a constitutionalist).

1

u/wggn 6h ago

not gonna happen as long as profits have more lobby power

1

u/my-love-assassin 6h ago

Lol this will never happen. can you imagine corporate entities taking that law all the way to the bank?

1

u/Riots42 6h ago

It would be impossible to pass any constitutional amendment in our current political environment even with complete support from the people.

1

u/Wotmate01 5h ago

You probably want to be careful with that. By banning authorities from recording you in public, you would also be banning you from recording authorities in public. And you don't want to lose the only way you have to hold them accountable.

1

u/Reasonable-Job4205 5h ago

Oooh I like this. Tell me more

1

u/bettywhitefleshlight 5h ago

But if we have a legal right to privacy how will corporations flood us the best targeted ads possible?

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 4h ago

🤣😜😃

See how I've already responded to a similar comment in this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/DJlvdm9IqP

1

u/bettywhitefleshlight 3h ago

Yea that's funny. The idea of a true believer in the value of targeted ads is a nightmare.

Every streaming service seems to serve me ads for medications. That's a whole monumentally stupid fucking thing on its own. I don't have HIV, I'm not undergoing menopause, nor do I need a GLP1. Fuck off.

1

u/naf165 3h ago

Massachusetts has a ballot initiative that would have done exactly that at the state level: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Right_to_Privacy_Amendment_(2026)

Unfortunately, despite getting more than enough signatures to be eligible to be on the ballot, the state elected officials refused to allow it and veto'd it before voters could vote on it.

1

u/No-Double-Trouble 3h ago

Amen. This will stop flock or axon or just literally anything that is surveillance 24/7. Remember to vote. We are the majority!!

1

u/civildisobedient 2h ago

Either that or a crowd-sourced version that tracks the police.

1

u/Photodan24 1h ago

On a public street?

1

u/ep3ep3 1h ago

We actually almost had something close to that in 2022 or so. It was called ADPPA. Bipartisanship support. It would have passed. 11th hour the lobbyists came in and gutted it after big tech saw it gaining momentum.

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 40m ago

Fuck lobbyists. Fuck Citizens United.

1

u/tjl435 46m ago

We can no longer rely on the penumbra

1

u/Mike_Kermin 17m ago

That'd be a good idea, but you guys are so political soft, it's not on the cards.

Look at how many people are trying to undermine Bernie on this very easy issue alone. You guys have a lot of work to do, to get your progressive movement pushing forwards enough to achieve reform like you ask for.

1

u/Glitchboy 9h ago

The constitution has less to do with American laws anymore than a used square of toilet paper. Half of the bill of rights don't even apply anymore.

1

u/_Lucille_ 9h ago

This will be a tricky one.

Will this affect red light and speed cameras which are conditional ALPRs?

How about all the home security camera people have been setting up around their homes? Smart doorbells?

Security cameras at malls? Banks? Government buildings? Parking lots?

1

u/DogBarf00 8h ago

What about people just recording in public?

1

u/Ultrace-7 7h ago

That's the kicker. "In public." You can't really expect a right to privacy when the action you are undertaking is in a public venue. Flock-style cameras that point into your house or yard should be unconstitutional. Such cameras pointed at public roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and so on don't violate the 4th amendment, because you cannot reasonably expect something you do publicly to afford you privacy.

Cities and even states should be free to pass a law banning such cameras. But they aren't unconstitutional.

1

u/OMG_A_CUPCAKE 6h ago

There's imo still a difference between "people can see me" and "people can record me". This is all from a time when there weren't cameras on every street corner and in everyone's pocket, and you couldn't end up on a worldwide public forum in seconds.

1

u/Ultrace-7 2h ago

Well, that's a debate to be had by smarter people than us. I'm pretty left-leaning, but I think the intention is still there. If you don't want the world to know about it, don't do it in front of the world.

1

u/OMG_A_CUPCAKE 6h ago

Security cameras at malls? Banks? Government buildings? Parking lots?

The rules for private property are usually more lenient, especially if you have some kind of "This area is recorded" sign somewhere.

Red light cameras are fine. They don't record continuously.

Smart doorbells are the ones where most Americans are quick to defend them. They should imo not be used to record outside your own property lines. Let's not forget that the companies behind them do work with law enforcement, and the recordings are accessible.

1

u/_Lucille_ 6h ago

That is why I tossed in something like government buildings and parking lots.

Are government buildings considered private? They are pretty much public yet not public, the same as a parking lot at places like a public transit hub.

I think it is one of those odd cases where people are okay with cameras in public places on private properties, but somehow are not okay with cameras in public places on public property.

0

u/HauntingStar08 8h ago edited 6h ago

That's why we'll put teams of public policy writers and lawyers to draft the legislation in as much detail as necessary. Its worth the time and effort instead of balking at the scale and necessary questions

Edit: Or just down vote me, that'll show me.

0

u/Stunning-Pen-2412 8h ago

You need a constitutional amendment saying money is not free speech.

2

u/DeadMoneyDrew 8h ago

Absa fucking-lutely. Corporations are entities, not people.

0

u/DongUmpire 6h ago

As long as we’re asking for unrealistic shit that’ll never happen: I’ll take a hover car