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?

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

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.

If he is an American citizen, he is not compelled to give up his passcode.

The Fifth Amendment starts with "No person ..." not "No citizen ..."

Bernie Sanders has proposed LLMs are using the collective knowledge of humanity so the people should own 50% of each LLM company.

The problem with ownership is that you also have to absorb the losses in addition to profiting from the gains. I don't see what problem ownership solves. We already have a way to get a slice of the pie for successful corporations: corporate income tax.

If you brake, that which was traveling forward wants to keep traveling forward. If anything, I'd expect the outer edges of the door to fly forward, i.e., more open.

Even if you were right, it probably would work only if the door is very open, but not ajar.

Yet traditional cab drivers don't monitor their passengers to make sure they are awake and alert and not reporting any distress the entire trip

Of course not. That's not the scenario. The scenario is waking the driver upon reaching the destination. A taxi driver could physically shake the person.

I can't currently imagine what that would be to get me to go along with the idea you have any claim against them.

Somebody, somewhere can.