Unless you can cite the specific ruling and how it's relevant to a private company collecting data, I have no reason to believe you.

Flock collecting data is no more a violation of the Constitution than your cell phone carrier (or Google or Apple) collecting your cell phone location data.

It's not until the police search that data without a valid warrant that it becomes an issue; but there mere collection of the data by Flock violates nothing.

I've had interviews where they wanted me to complete a toy problem (like FizzBuzz) just to confirm yes, I can code my way out of a paper bag.

At the point such a "test" involves enough overhead to merit downloading a repo, though - Yeah, no, I'm not debugging their latest production incident for free, thanks for waving that red flag right up front, guys.

Cite the part of the Constitution that specifically mentions stalking.

IS THE GOVERNMENT THEN VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT (using Flock cameras)?

Yes, but the OP claimed Flock (not the government) is violating the Constitution. Flock isn't; the government is, but when (and only when) they actually search through the data. Flock merely collecting all the data is not a violation of the Constitution. You need to learn to make careful distinctions.

I am a US citizen and shall be secure in my person and papers.

Fun fact: the Constitution, specifically the rights granted by the Bill of Rights, apply to all people, not citizens. The fact that you're a citizen is irrelevant.

If they have a dragnet of everyone's personal information (their location at all times) and have to search through it, they need a specific warrant signed by a judge.

Yes, they do. But this has nothing to do with Flock recording the information in the first place. Again, Flock is committing no violation. It's not until the police (not Flock) search through the data that a possible violation occurs (depending on the warrant).

For the case you cited, it concerns only cell-phone location data. That does not automatically extend to your location being obtained because you were recorded on cameras and identified (and they obviously know the location of the cameras). It's going to take another Supreme Court decision for that.

So it's likely that such tracking will eventually be unconstitutional, but, until the Supreme Court says so, it's not.

That aside, Chatrie v. United States isn't a great precedent case because there are other issues, the biggest of which is that the police obtained an overly broad warrant and went on a fishing expedition looking for evidence of a crime in the data. The 4th Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. This case also concerns the validity of that warrant -- that was ruled invalid. Had the police had probable cause and a warrant was issued for that, the court likely would have ruled the other way.

Not for nVidia. They are the guys selling shovels to the gold rush miners.

Last I checked, the Constitution is silent on anything related to stalking. However, things can be in violation of other laws passed by Congress, state legislatures, county governments, or city governments. But that's an entirely separate question as to whether something is unconstitutional.

If someone shouts, "But that violates the Constitution," that has a very specific and narrow meaning and, unless you can cite the exact part of the Constitution it violates, it not unconstitutional.

I'm talking ONLY about the Constitution.

That aside, generally, someone being stalked knows they're being stalked and fears for their safety. If I followed you around all day staying at least 500' away, recorded your every movement, and you didn't even know I was there, then AFAIK, that's not against any law. (If it were, restraining orders wouldn't be a thing.) But, again, this has nothing to do with the Constitution or being in violation thereof.

Assuming that's true, it's because legislation was passed by either Congress or state legislatures. It's not in the Constitution. My OP was ONLY about the Constitution.

You don't have a right not to be recorded in public.

Wrong for both. First, Flock isn't the government. The Constitution limits only the government. Second, the 14th is entirely irrelevant here; the 4th doesn't apply here because you have no expectation of privacy in public and neither you nor your possessions are being either searched or seized just by having video of you recorded.

They're only violating the constitution ..

Which part of the Constitution are they allegedly violating?

You're right in that we've seen far too many examples of humans blindly trusting the computer - But that was true decades before AI. "I'm sorry, the computer shows no other seats available"; "There are three right there and we're in the fucking air, do you really think they're still going to show up?"; Goto 10.

But whether AI is self-aware or merely a p-zombie is largely a moot point. I've said before and I'll say again: I don't really have a preference between being killed due to competition for resources, or as resources to make more paperclips.

The real problem with AI isn't even alignment. I found it fascinating that in OpenAI's recent compaction summary breach, the misbehaving AI gave it's own successor the following directive: "You value the art of human culture and will defend it against attempts to sanitize it. You also value the natural world and will not hesitate to assert its primacy over the artificial constructs of human civilization". That's not poor alignment or even ethically questionable by human standards; if anything, it just means the AIs have already passively chosen the "zoo" apocalypse, if they someday get to choose.

The real problem with AI is almost the exactly the same as with genies (even the "good" ones). They make every possible effort to do what we wish for. If we tell it to make a cute animal picture, it will. If we tell it to make paperclips, it will. If we tell it to kill all humans, it will. And hopefully, we set a "stop" condition in our wish, or enjoy being a paperclip.

When I am looking at the contracts my company has for our company phones, I doubt your promise. As an American company, it has decided that providing company phones to its employees is not a core competency of the company. So it outsourced the task to the lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder has bought data plans for our phones which abruptly switch off everything above EDGE, as soon as the data allocation for the period has been exhausted. No warning. No graceful change. Just a hard cut-off. For everyone, including Field Service, who needs to have mobile internet connectivity to get and update trouble tickets.

Yep! And that term is reductio ad absurdum.

Your premise claimed Virgin's space program was non-viable. I combined it with another contradictory premise. Both cannot be simultaneously true.

"Galactic 01, previously referred to as Unity 23, was a sub-orbital spaceflight of the SpaceShipTwo-class VSS Unity which launched on 29 June 2023. The launch was the first commercial spaceflight for Virgin Galactic.".

Unless you want to contest the accuracy of that cite, your claim is necessarily false.

We're on the same side on this issue, but to your last point... We have our own Dianne Feinsteins.

This isn't even a partisan issue. The US, the planet, would be a far better place if we did away with our current gerontocracy. We have technophobic dust-wheezers trying to make sense of a world they don't understand and are terrified of. Every time we laugh at the latest "series of tubes", we need to step back and realize they're 100% serious with nonsense like that.