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...

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"? :-)

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...

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...

never enter the US. Works great

Works great for all of us indeed.

Do be sure to take your phone to China with you, though. It just might heal your delusions about "multipolar world" and all that.

So any interaction with the Brownshirts of Fatherland Security?

That was true even before Germany's surplus WWI uniforms were distributed to adherents of a certain party...

better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders

How about any border? Even more generally, at any situation, when the ordinary rights do not obtain...

I wonder, what the long term consequences of obtaining — and using — this skill are, if any... Does it make one smarter? Or faster? Does it reduce — or increase — the risk of developing Altzheimer? Does it affect personality in any way?

Also, can the skill be lost — if not regularly used — or is it more like bicycle-riding?

I was thinking the same, they play with numbers so that the unemployment rate looks better than it is, discouraged workers, those who haven't looked in the last 4 weeks (which could for a variety of reasons, illness, family issues, taking time to retrain, transportation problems, etc.), or a parent who has to stay home because childcare is insanely expensive and they'd spend more on it than they'd make (yes, it actually can happen). And people giving up looking for working or just retiring a bit early because their career it shot (I'm thinking AI replaced jobs) isn't a good thing.

Also, there's the issues of being underemployed, or taking jobs at a lower wage than they would normally, etc. So while they may be 'employed' their situation has degraded compared to the past.

This seems to be the de facto way companies are operating now, my only hope if enough people just say no thanks (or f*ck off ! more appropriately) that they will back off, but I'm not optimistic. Doctorow's book actually does a really nice job using case studies to outline how the path the enshitification process happens, Facebook / Meta is pretty much the poster child for it.

Anything with software now, be it a dishwasher, a car, a watch, these asshole companies are either using your data for their benefit, or charging you to access features that should simply be included (or in some case are actually already there but turned off unless you fork over $x per month).

that us Gen X'ers played as kids, only more expensive, with higher stakes and when it goes all wrong -- instead of us all laughing like we did as kids, you lose clients, or people get fired, or someones loses money, etc.