You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law

What "Constitutional Law"? Citation needed. Needed so badly, I'll do it for you:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Oh, wait...

"The biggest being that the digitalization of content overall..."

Do they think what's on those discs isn't digital?

people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices

Maybe, we should not, but there is not law prohibiting government to do this.

AI may be new, but the problem is not, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed government's right to surveil us in public without any warrants (list courtesy of Grok). The second item — known as Knotts — is particularly telling...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Besides, how can the 4th Amendment include cameras, which didn't exist in the 18th century, if the 2nd doesn't protect "assault rifles"? :-)

Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.

Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.

It most definitely is not. The actual text of the Amendment, for your benefit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The camera is not peering into your pockets, or windows. It is only looking at what's publicly visible...

Very simple, obvious, common-sense argument: whatever a human policeman can see and memorize, an electronic device can record too.

Governments don't have the right to do mass general surveillance

Huh?! Why not? Let's focus on American (Federal) government in particular — what is prohibiting them from conducting "mass general surveillance"?

Not saying, it is good — or bad — just want you to substantiate your claim, that it is somehow illegal...

This would be a good time to point out that every political argument has two sides and two points of view.

I've seen the arguments for both sides of this issue, and have come to the conclusion that there is merit for both. People should really look at the specific charges being made, with examples, before coming to any conclusion.

Every time someone tries to rein in the news media, it's received by shouts of first amendment, freedom of speech, chilling effects, and so on; and yet, this leads to insane situations. Google most egregious US media failures in the last 10 years for a list of incidents, and note how many of these affected major political events such as a presidential election or national policy.

Should a journalist be able to walk into a church during service and interrupt the proceedings, and not be held accountable because he's a journalist? Should a major news outlet be able to report something without at least a cursory check to see if it's accurate? Should an interview answer be swapped with the answer from a different question?

I've come to the conclusion that knee-jerk framing is on purpose, everyone wants to get "ahead" of an issue, and if an erroneous/misleading/false statement is made they will simply say "oops... I made a mistake" and there's no repurcussions... except that the lie went out to the audience and a small percentage got outraged in the right direction, regardless of whether the statement is true or not.

A "straw-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the most absurd terms and then attack the absurdity. A "strong-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the strongest possible terms and then try to attack it.

Choose the "strong-man" argument here. Find out what the administration is complaining about, and see if you can fault their logic.

>"If we have an influx of workers at this point with the data centers being built, what happens when they're done? Where do those workers go?"

At least skilled trades is one area AI can't take over. For now.

Yes, it was theft.

I asked about genocide, not theft...

we signed treaties with the natives and then BROKE LITERALLY EVERY ONE OF THEM

What treaties?.. But do enumerate the genocides first, before you go rambling further off topic...

You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals

Genocides — plural — is the worst accusation here, and warrants a follow-up question. What genocides (two or more) has our government committed — within our lifetimes?

They're going to make an example out of him and give him the maximum.

"They" who? A jury of his peers?

I doubt it...

Had a look at the criminal complaint just to find out where the perpetrators had gone wrong.

Sending anonymous tweets and E-mails, they purchased pre-paid debit cards to send packages to their home, various harassment techniques such as ordering a pizza "pay on delivery" at 4:30 AM, and so on and so on... how on Earth did the NPD ever figure this out?

Turns out the perpetrators flew from California to Boston area (Natick) to put a GPS on the Steiners' car, which they couldn't do because it was kept in a locked garage, so they rented vehicles to surveil the Steiners, their license plates were noted and given to Natick Police Department (NPD), and the rental agency was contacted.

Once the eBay operatives were identified, they tried various misdirects and obfustication techniques, but NPD a) verified their statements, and so figured out they were lying, and b) contacted eBay directly, which had a security team respond in good faith, and the whole plan unravelled.

One, single mistake is all that stood between a long campaign of harassment and getting found out. One good local police department who took the trouble to look deeply into the problem and figure out the truth despite a torrent of misdirection and obfustication.

I wonder how many more campaigns of harassment are ongoing, led by people who know how to conduct vehicle-based surveillance, or encouraged by ineffective or lazy policing.

"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.

The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.

We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.

IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.

The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.

Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.