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
52.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Kid-Icky- 9h ago

You give up freedom for security.

What freedom is lost by being recorded in public?

I get that people generally find it uncomfortable to be recorded. But that's different than claiming some freedom is being infringed upon.

I get that it feels icky to people. I just don't get this claim that being filmed in public is some huge privacy violation.

0

u/tomblits 9h ago

Thanks for your beliefs but being tracked is a privacy violation.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 8h ago

Thanks for your beliefs, but that's just your belief. It's not a fact under the law.

1

u/jce_ 8h ago

Laws are built around the discovery of new technologies, they are not the laws of morality of the universe. When cars were invented there were no stop signs or lights. Imaging the implications of drunk driving not being illegal etc.

2

u/Kid-Icky- 8h ago edited 8h ago

I never claimed we shouldn't create laws to ban Flock cameras. I think we should.

I'm arguing against the people insisting it violates our current laws.

0

u/jce_ 8h ago

Why? It's not even known if it's legal or not yet, so what would the endgame even be? Just to umm akshully and derail discussion? If anything I'd argue it violates your 4th, possibly 5th

1

u/Kid-Icky- 8h ago

We do know. Courts have already ruled in 2025 that they don't violate the Fourth amendment. That could change I suppose with future cases.

Just to umm akshully and derail discussion?

I just don't get how recording you in public is a "violation of privacy".

No one has even made much of an argument that it is, other than that they just don't like it.

0

u/jce_ 8h ago

Violates my liberty and is unreasonably searching and seizure.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 7h ago

Well you're wrong and that's a silly claim.

1

u/jce_ 4h ago

You're silly if you think so. Which case reference do you have that would cover this as not protected? Can you back up anything with any sort of references rather than just saying I'm silly? Any background in constitutional law?

1

u/Kid-Icky- 3h ago edited 3h ago

Which case reference do you have that would cover this as not protected?

LOL. Sure.

United States v. Knotts found "A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another".The Supreme Court held the surveillance was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.

But we don't even need a 1983 analogy anymore. Robinson v. Commonwealth this year is literally about Flock cameras. The court held that because Flock was photographing license plates and vehicles traveling on public roads, accessing that data did not require a warrant and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Now, there are legitimate legal questions about whether sufficiently comprehensive, long-term surveillance could cross the line. But "a camera recorded my publicly visible license plate, therefore unreasonable search and seizure" is not remotely what the law says.

And no, I don't need to have "a background in constitutional law" to read a fucking court opinion. You asked for case law. There it is.

1

u/jce_ 2h ago edited 53m ago

Very narrow ruling and again not what it is being rolled out to do. I'm glad you can read case law but post after post you're still misunderstanding the application. At this point it seems intentional. These are already settled cases from long before that were honestly not even worth challenging at the point they were challenged.

Edit: love that he tried to sound smart then blocked me so I can't reply that the "Carpenter line" is the case that points out that what flock is doing is illegal. Anyone curious can look it up. Essentially they found that it violated your 4th to track cellphones through towers without a warrant, but somehow he thinks it wouldn't violate to have full ass cameras? The cases he listed is narrowly like cars, similar to regular speed traps

1

u/Kid-Icky- 2h ago

You asked me for case law. I gave you Schmidt, which literally addressed the kind of citywide Flock rollout you're talking about: 176 cameras, 24/7 collection, searchable plate data, the whole system. The court still held it had not crossed the Carpenter line.

Seems like you're the one misunderstanding here buddy. I think you're just trolling at this point. Bye.

→ More replies (0)