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.

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.

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?

I mean, ultimately, they're going to need to take a real fly brain, and hook it up to the Doom simulation, to see how accurate the fly brain simulation is.

What's the point of having a mobile phone that you don't carry around? You might as well have a landline.

Jellyfish that could concentrate heavy metals from the water they live in.
You would let them breed and clean up water in an area, then release a pheromone to get them to jump into your harvester ship, render them and get the contaminants.

They were released in an area with an old nuclear waste dump, so some of the stuff they were concentrating was potentially fissile.
Especially so when the pheromone told them to go up the water intakes at a power plant...

Right now, it is legal for third parties like Flock to collect surveillance data and offer it for sale to anyone.
The third party doctrine makes it presumed OK for third parties to give or sell their data to the Government.
This is rapidly eroding Fourth Amendment guarantees in the US.

One possible way out would be to specify in federal law that data that can enable mass surveillance must be protected - leaking it gets you fined, government doesn't get it without a warrant.

The HIPAA laws are a potential model here - they basically say data related to health care can only be shared between certain businesses, and only with the permission of the person the data is about.

...to make new factories.

Like imagine if it were possible to create new semiconductor factories, making chips en masse, -- you could perhaps do it in a BIIIG state with a lot of land. You could have a factory with like 100 million square feet. Wouldn't that be something?

Maybe we should have more factories.

If only there were a price incentive to do so.

Destroying the originals in no way cancels out the fact that they made an unauthorized copies. They're two separate things. Copyright is literally and only about the right to copy. Buying a book doesn't give you that right; it only makes you the legal owner of that hard copy.