Comment Re:So Flock too? (Score 1) 55
No.
I've cited SCOTUS several times on this. You're wrong.
Comment Re:So Flock too? (Score 1) 55
The act of searching a specific plate up in the government's database is a defacto search under the 4th Amendment as ruled repeatedly by SCOTUS. That the lower circuit courts ignore this (also repeatedly) doesn't change this fact.
SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that a private citizens movements while in public are considered private. Thus, public license plate readers are not actually legal under the 4th amendment. Lower level courts like to to do mental gymnastics to justify them, but at the SCOTUS level they are not legal.
For instance in 4th circuit appeals case, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, the courts argued that with regards to fixed location license plate readers, that their "brief" and "non-continuous snapshots" of a vehicle on public streets, doesn't constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment. But in several other cases such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), SCOTUS has concluded that monitoring a persons movements, be it via camera, cell phone data, gps, etc. all constitute a "search" under the 4A and enjoy privacy protections.
SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that a private citizens movements while in public are considered private. Thus, public license plate readers are not actually legal under the 4th amendment. Lower level courts like to to do mental gymnastics to justify them, but at the SCOTUS level they are not legal.
For instance in 4th circuit appeals case, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, the courts argued that with regards to fixed location license plate readers, that their "brief" and "non-continuous snapshots" of a vehicle on public streets, doesn't constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment. But in several other cases such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), SCOTUS has concluded that monitoring a persons movements, be it via camera, cell phone data, gps, etc. all constitute a "search" under the 4A and enjoy privacy protections.
Comment Re:What a Crock (Score 1) 55
As Local ID10T aptly put:
In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court specifically addressed the issue that the purpose for which the information was shared was relevant to the establishment of a privacy interest.
Cell phone information is shared with the cell tower operators as a necessary function of the cellular system: your phone wont work if the towers do not know how to route the data to you. You maintain a 4th amendment privacy interest in the information, even though it is shared with third parties.
Also the SCOTUS has stated:
From Carpenter v. United States (2018)
(1) A majority of the Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.
The problem is that the purpose for which the government is recording in public is to track you which violates the 4th Amendment in multiple ways. Ergo, while you have no expectation of privacy in the public with regard to observation of your person, your movements and any databased data on your persons in aggregate, do.
Comment Re:So Flock too? (Score 1) 55
I would like to add to your point that SCOTUS has ruled that, while you do not have a general expectation of privacy in public, some things you do while in public, do enjoy a level of privacy: specifically your movements.
From Carpenter v. United States (20180), a recent case about Geofencing:
From Carpenter v. United States (20180), a recent case about Geofencing:
(1) A majority of the Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements...
Comment Re:Jan. 6th? (Score 1) 55
I'm thinking he brought it up because one of the primary means of identifying the people involved during the J6 incident was Cell Tower Dumps.
It was also brought up in several court case regarding the J6 defendants, and it was deemed legal and not a 4A violation then.
Which creates a set of double standards. As a matter of fact, just about everything in the prosecution of the J6'ers, legally is nothing but double standards and blatant constitutional and legal violations. But no one seems to give a shit because of tribalism, and they'd rather see the nation burn to the ground than admit they're wrong.
It was also brought up in several court case regarding the J6 defendants, and it was deemed legal and not a 4A violation then.
Which creates a set of double standards. As a matter of fact, just about everything in the prosecution of the J6'ers, legally is nothing but double standards and blatant constitutional and legal violations. But no one seems to give a shit because of tribalism, and they'd rather see the nation burn to the ground than admit they're wrong.
Comment Re:So Flock too? (Score 1) 55
Searching and obtaining data from flock cameras, is in fact unconstitutional absent a warrant, specifically describing the incident being searched. The courts already ruled in multiple instances about this. Another specific case is Carpenter v. United States (2018).
Comment Re:Tower dump in Mississippi (Score 1) 55
They don't care about catching criminals either.
What they care about is prestige (looking important) and collecting their pension. Everything else is not even secondary, but to be discarded for "officer safety".
What they care about is prestige (looking important) and collecting their pension. Everything else is not even secondary, but to be discarded for "officer safety".
Comment Re: You say that like it's a bad thing (Score 1) 165
A point of contention.... Apple is STILL "in that span of time" where they're unfriendly to repairs.
Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 132
Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 132
Don't worry, SCOTUS (Carpenter v. United States (2018)) has already deemed this a violation of the 4th amendment.
SCOTUS has concluded that the average citizen has a right to privacy with regards to their movement. Other means of tracking people, such as GPS data and Cell Tower Tracking, has been deemed a "Search" under the 4th amendment. Regardless of whether or not a 3rd part did the collecting of data. The act "searching", or requesting, constitutes a "search" under the 4th Amendment.
Recording with a camera, everything that happens in an area is no different than recording all cell phone movement within an area. The latter has been ruled on multiple occasions as being a search under the 4th amendment. The former is nothing but recording a different type of data.
SCOTUS has concluded that the average citizen has a right to privacy with regards to their movement. Other means of tracking people, such as GPS data and Cell Tower Tracking, has been deemed a "Search" under the 4th amendment. Regardless of whether or not a 3rd part did the collecting of data. The act "searching", or requesting, constitutes a "search" under the 4th Amendment.
Recording with a camera, everything that happens in an area is no different than recording all cell phone movement within an area. The latter has been ruled on multiple occasions as being a search under the 4th amendment. The former is nothing but recording a different type of data.
Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 132
You are incorrect.
The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018))
While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public, the act of doing so is circumstantial as the act does not bear any level of "scrutiny". When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights as it constitutes a "search" and thus requires a warrant.
From Carpenter v. United States (2018)
The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018))
While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public, the act of doing so is circumstantial as the act does not bear any level of "scrutiny". When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights as it constitutes a "search" and thus requires a warrant.
From Carpenter v. United States (2018)
(1) A majority of the Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Allowing government access to cell-site records—which “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life,’ ” Riley v. California, 573 U. S. ___, ___—contravenes that expectation.
Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 132
In America, we have this thing called the "4th amendment".
The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)) as US citizen's enjoy certain levels of "privacy", even when in public.
This "privacy" while in public, with regard to the government, is specifically related and limited to to unreasonable focus of observation, monitoring and tracking (i.e. scrutiny), which the courts have deemed intrusive on a person. (Chatrie v. United States)
The Fourth Amendment states:
The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)) as US citizen's enjoy certain levels of "privacy", even when in public.
This "privacy" while in public, with regard to the government, is specifically related and limited to to unreasonable focus of observation, monitoring and tracking (i.e. scrutiny), which the courts have deemed intrusive on a person. (Chatrie v. United States)
The Fourth Amendment states:
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The courts have held for 40+ years that searching a database, accessing compiled records, etc, is a defacto "search" under the 4th Amendment.
Thus US citizen's enjoy two levels of protection against "Mass Surveillance":
1.) The protection from direct observation, tracking, or "surveilling" (i.e. focused scrutiny) by the government without Probable Cause.
2.) The protection from the government from searching through compiled databases for information on said citizen, again without Probable Cause.
3.) The act of "mass surveillance" lacks specificity in scope of the surveillance and thus a violation of the 4th Amendment
The government seems to think though, that if they outsource the mass surveillance and the database searching, they are somehow absolved of any 4A restrictions. But these mass surveillance and searches are conducted on their behalf, at their direction, and at their payment. Ergo it is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 132
A lot of government agencies and police departments think that if they "outsource" the data collection, data sorting, and data searching, that somehow they're not actually violating the 4th amendment.
The public needs to disabuse them from this incorrect ideology, because certainly the courts wont fucking do it.
The courts have been giving law enforcement and the government more and more leeway over, just about everything. From "officer safety" at the expense of the public's safety, to using the constitution as toilet paper for their butthole when it comes with 4A rights to searches and seizures. (I'm looking at you Terry v. Ohio and Pennsylvania v. Mimms)
The public needs to disabuse them from this incorrect ideology, because certainly the courts wont fucking do it.
The courts have been giving law enforcement and the government more and more leeway over, just about everything. From "officer safety" at the expense of the public's safety, to using the constitution as toilet paper for their butthole when it comes with 4A rights to searches and seizures. (I'm looking at you Terry v. Ohio and Pennsylvania v. Mimms)
Comment Isn't that what all wiki editors does? (Score 1) 214
I've seen this exact behavior countless times on wikipedia. If no one else is being held accountable, why should we care when this person is?
Comment Re:Or the phone companies could stop it at the sou (Score 2) 54
I've watched hearings at different State capitols where the phone companies were asked specifically if they knew who was making the robocalls. They all stated they knew who and where the calls originate from.
When asked if they would do anything about it, they all either refused to answer or came up with bullshit excuses.
They know. They just make too much money off the calls to care.
When asked if they would do anything about it, they all either refused to answer or came up with bullshit excuses.
They know. They just make too much money off the calls to care.
