> Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. It's legal until your expected Supreme Court decision lands. This is just another…
> companies like Palantir and Anduril are clearly pursuing political objectives, including subverting governance by creating tools which set the frame and context that governance happens in. Can you elaborate on what…
The US stopped countless wars from starting in the first place due to deterrence. Look at Ukraine to see what happens to a country that isn't part of an alliance like NATO.
There's a big difference between "Flock and other ALPR tech is illegal" And "Flock and other ALPR tech is legal. But it's my personal prediction that some future Supreme Court decision will make them illegal."
> The court doesn't agree, and they've explicitly pointed out that 4A still applies when someone is being monitored and tracked in public. Only when that tracking is done via cell phone location information. The…
If it's not in the Supreme Court's decision then it doesn't matter as far as the law goes. At this point you've basically admitted that the Carpenter decision doesn't have any bearing on Flock, you're just trying to…
As I've repeatedly explained, the Carpenter decision was narrowly scoped to cell phone location data. The decision did not do anything to restrict other forms of monitoring. The idea that Carpenter restricts…
> No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time). And this is…
Except the narrowness of the final ruling is exactly what makes it not impact the legality of Flock. It doesn't matter whether you think the courts decision should be extended to cameras - your opinion doesn't decide…
And the point remains, regardless of semantic quibbling: a checkpoint is probably the least surprising place to encounter surveillance. Arguably, it's the whole point of a checkpoint to surveil, "checking" in your…
Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.
This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not…
> The data includes "private movements" which is why it's unconstitutional (the SC said aggregation of public data can impel privacy concerns) But does it? You keep insisting this is the case, but your attempts to back…
And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the…
Seattle is one of the wealthiest metros in the country, with expansive social programs. It's the last place where you can try and blame crime on deprivation.
> Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. ...and including movements…
It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements. Your phone's GPS data doesn't just…
Again, you keep citing decisions without bothering to understand the context behind the. For instance, "To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be…
If you owned property, or otherwise got permission from the property owners to put cameras there, then yes.
> This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though…
No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all.
When have I been "proven wrong over and over again"? The court cases you've cited are all about governments demanding private cell phone location information, and you're trying to shoehorn those decisions into covering…
> The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data.…
Carpenter v. United States was about the government accessing telecommunications data. This is not public information, location data also tracks people's movements on private property. Just like the other case you…
Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?
> Where does "Flock tech might currently be illegal pending adjudication" land? Just because someone is doing it, does not make it legal. It's legal until your expected Supreme Court decision lands. This is just another…
> companies like Palantir and Anduril are clearly pursuing political objectives, including subverting governance by creating tools which set the frame and context that governance happens in. Can you elaborate on what…
The US stopped countless wars from starting in the first place due to deterrence. Look at Ukraine to see what happens to a country that isn't part of an alliance like NATO.
There's a big difference between "Flock and other ALPR tech is illegal" And "Flock and other ALPR tech is legal. But it's my personal prediction that some future Supreme Court decision will make them illegal."
> The court doesn't agree, and they've explicitly pointed out that 4A still applies when someone is being monitored and tracked in public. Only when that tracking is done via cell phone location information. The…
If it's not in the Supreme Court's decision then it doesn't matter as far as the law goes. At this point you've basically admitted that the Carpenter decision doesn't have any bearing on Flock, you're just trying to…
As I've repeatedly explained, the Carpenter decision was narrowly scoped to cell phone location data. The decision did not do anything to restrict other forms of monitoring. The idea that Carpenter restricts…
> No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time). And this is…
Except the narrowness of the final ruling is exactly what makes it not impact the legality of Flock. It doesn't matter whether you think the courts decision should be extended to cameras - your opinion doesn't decide…
And the point remains, regardless of semantic quibbling: a checkpoint is probably the least surprising place to encounter surveillance. Arguably, it's the whole point of a checkpoint to surveil, "checking" in your…
Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.
This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not…
> The data includes "private movements" which is why it's unconstitutional (the SC said aggregation of public data can impel privacy concerns) But does it? You keep insisting this is the case, but your attempts to back…
And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the…
Seattle is one of the wealthiest metros in the country, with expansive social programs. It's the last place where you can try and blame crime on deprivation.
> Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. ...and including movements…
It's not just the specific technology being used to conduct the search, it's that the information the police obtained Chatrie and in Carpender both included people's private movements. Your phone's GPS data doesn't just…
Again, you keep citing decisions without bothering to understand the context behind the. For instance, "To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be…
If you owned property, or otherwise got permission from the property owners to put cameras there, then yes.
> This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though…
No, for the fifth time, Chatrie and Carpenter dealt with private cell phone location information. This is not the exact same subject matter at all.
When have I been "proven wrong over and over again"? The court cases you've cited are all about governments demanding private cell phone location information, and you're trying to shoehorn those decisions into covering…
> The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data.…
Carpenter v. United States was about the government accessing telecommunications data. This is not public information, location data also tracks people's movements on private property. Just like the other case you…
Uh huh, and? When did the supreme court decide that ALPR data becomes a search the moment it gets logged to a database?