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?

Free speech includes lying.

Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.

"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?

The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.

If the rental period is indefinite, then the only reason to stop offering it should be technical or logistical - IE something actually broke in the company's systems. We were stupid, consolidated on this one cloud system that turned out to be based in one room in some guy's basement, there are no backups, and there was a fire.

Not a company decision to not renew a licensing agreement.

I agree.

Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?