552
Flock Said Its Cameras Don't Track People. Then a Reporter Proved Them Wrong On Video (www.gadgetreview.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 2 months ago (16 children)

It's a patriotic act defending the 4th amendment to destroy those cameras.. it's in the freaking constitution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Not sure public video recording amounts to a search and seizure. Is there case precedent establishing specifically that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago

    Its not "Search and Siezure" it is "Searches" and "Siezures". It violates the "Searches" part and the only way to work around is a warrant. A "search" is not only to search a person's house, but to subject a person to being followed and tracked day in and out needs a Judicial Warrant in most circumstances because you are violating the subjects right to privacy.

    In the case of Flock they could set up cameras and have trained people watch them, and that is iffy at that, but once it is autommatically stored and cataloged everything everyone does and where they go, and can be used to unwind everything a person does quite litterally like Big Brother, and then you can put that in a data base where the police can litterally do fishing expeditions after the fact to make a case, or the AI can just spit out a name that got a well known car reviewer seconds away from getting his life ended by a police officer because it mixed his plate with annother, that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

    I is like the famous saying of the head of the Polish Secret Police "You show me the man and I will show you the crime". It is because of this you have a right to not talk to the police and legally speaking any little thing you say or respond to "...can and will be used against you in a court of law.". If you try hard enough you can come up with multiple crimes for anyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It's stalking, not merely "public". "Public" does not imply a panopticon!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    It applies to the government too, just like how companies can fire you and discriminate against you for speech, but the government can't (except if you say "I am going to kill the president of the United States" or if you say "you should kill the president of the United States." Both of which are illegal. Very illegal. Super duper illegal you should never say them.)

    However it gets muddy when you're hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    That didn't address my point.

    Is public video recording considered a 4th amendment violation?

    Because that's what the Flock cameras do.

    The rest of what makes Flock... is processing after the fact. And that analysis is effectively the same as what any social media or advertising company does when they build a profile on you. Actually basically any tech company nowadays is making a profile for you and attaching it to whatever data they can get their hands on, and usually selling access to their data on you as well. And those are clearly considered legal. Whether they should be is a different topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Your question is what is not decided yet. The merger of surveillance capitalism and the federal government is something warned about decades ago and now it's here. It takes years for this stuff to make it's way through courts and up to SCOTUS (assuming it will get there).

    Your point makes sense because a ruling against flock could also impact the tech companies that have been doing invasive tracking, arguably even more invasive, for decades. What makes flock different though are the direct contracts with governments.

    There is a recent case that may support all this being illegal. SCOTUS recently ruled governments using geofencing data does constituent a search and therefore 4th amendment protections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    The data processing isn't after the fact, its happening in real time and your examples of tech companies tracking you are things you can opt out of but you can't opt out of being tracked by these cameras posted around your city on government property funded by your own tax dollars.

    Police arent allowed to perform a stakeout on a citizen and track all their movements 24/7 without a warrant, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to have some AI do it without a warrant instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    However it gets muddy when you're hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

    I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment. Can the government hire a company to violate your rights? Even if filming in public is legal otherwise, maybe it should be illegal when hired by the government to do warrantless surveillance of every citizen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    its not just video recording. its tracking. so if you ho to a store and that store has security cameras, thats allowed. bua person cant follow you around and stalk you and record you and attach meta data to you.

    a woman was raped by het abusive husband. left texas to get an sbortion. texad law makers used flock to track her and charge her.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent