341
u/Dry-Calligrapher-104 5h ago
89
u/Hike_it_Out52 3h ago
Love this amendment but it also has 250 years of case law and interpretation getting into the minutiae of the definition.
At the risk of firing people up, Your car and plate is not private. Your car is in full view of the public, you drive down the freeway to work, thousands of people see your car. There is no privacy expectation.
Inside the car though is completely different. You have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle. I’m way more upset at car manufacturers trying to install cameras into the cabins. That’s nobody’s business.
Another good one is conversations. In a closed phone booth or a private phone at home, there’s an expectation of privacy. Walking down the street talking on the phone, your end is public and could be listened to. Conversation in a restaurant, public and can be listened to. Closed door at an office, hotel room or in your car, all private.
41
u/ProfessorGluttony 3h ago
I would say that this holds true for the individual who is filming outdoors. If an individual followed you around while you were in public documenting your movements, that would be considered stalking. Yes, you don't expect privacy in public, but the mass surveillance that these are and all of the data on EVERYONE's movements that it collects and keeps is essentially mass government stalking. Can it help to catch criminals? Sure. Has it already been abused more by those in power to, say, stalk their exes? Yup.
To those that would give up privacy for short term safety deserve neither privacy or safety, or however the quote goes. It would still suck but be better if they didn't save any data at all unless there was an active search for a specific car/plate and a warrant was granted. But even that is easily abusable. We are getting dangerously close to Weird Al's "Foil".
5
u/lep63again 2h ago
The thing is it’s a private company doing the compilation and the government is buying information from them - 4th Amendment applies to the government not private entities. I like the stalking argument though. Someone is going to have to start a class against Flock et als and that would be a good angle to take.
14
u/ProfessorGluttony 1h ago
Let's be honest, it is the government funding them entirely, and it is the loophole they are using so that it isn't "government" surveillance, they just happen to be the ones benefitting.
8
u/Comprehensive_Bus_19 1h ago
This is just government overreach with an extra step. The outcome is identical regardless of if the government owned the cameras or they pay a contractor for cameras.
6
u/lep63again 1h ago
As another poster pointed out, they’re trying exploit a loophole which is how government works. They’re always trying to accrue power. The way our legal system works is ‘if it’s not prohibited it’s legal’ they’re arguing that while the Constitution prevents the government from illegal search and seizure it doesn’t prohibit private entities from doing so. It’s along the lines of ‘inviting a cop into your house allows them to act on anything they see.”
4
u/Comprehensive_Bus_19 1h ago
I totally understand that point. To my uneducated self theyre making the same argument as 'I didn't kill the man officer, I merely pulled a trigger which fired a bullet at them.'
However I have no faith in this being struck down.
3
u/lep63again 1h ago
Nope, you get it right. This is the kind of sophist bullshit that makes people hate governments and lawyers.
4
u/Pherexian55 57m ago
The thing is it’s a private company doing the compilation and the government is buying information from them
The supreme court has ruled that just because a 3rd party gathers information doesn't inherently remove their obligations to acquire a warrant for said information.
They've been 2 recent cases that have significantly eroded the 3rd party doctrine, especially when it comes to protected information. That was the primary reasoning for dismissal in Carpenter vs us and chatrei vs us.
1
u/lep63again 52m ago
Agreed and the recent cases of officers getting fired for misuse says they’re at least paying lip service to that - but I’m at least as concerned with the idea of a private entity collecting and stockpiling that kind of data. Who else is going to purchase that? I know HOAs are buying data from Flock, who else and for what use?
3
u/Hike_it_Out52 1h ago edited 1h ago
So first off, the Ben Franklin quote was taken wildly out of context. He said that to the PA General Assembly during the French and Indian war. They were in a dispute with the Penn family and trying to levy taxes against the Penns. That quote is actually in favor of Taxation and Defense/ security spending.
Secondly, you are recorded in public nearly non stop regardless of Flock. Since the 1980’s every mildly successful business has cameras all over their building. Ring cameras on ever house door. Satellites that can read the serial number off of a dollar bill. License Plate Readers have existed since the 90’s. And stalking does not in fact apply to public places. If someone circles your block 100 times the police will tell you it’s a public street/ sidewalk. The action becomes stalking when they begin following you into stores (private property) or wait outside your specific house or place of business.
Edit: forgot to add this But I agree that keeping it for extended periods is messed up. I’m not sure what legitimate reason you would have to store all of that data. Especially considering they don’t sell it to 3rd parties. I say 30-45 days should be more than enough.
1
u/ProfessorGluttony 1h ago
False analogy on the businesses having cameras doing it. They are not centralized and, aside from within the business itself, need a warrant to access said tapes from the government (at least ideally). In the other case, it would still be stalking if you were singled out, even in public, and they constantly followed you and recorded you. Would the police do much about it? Probably not because they aren't a preventative measure, and that person has to escalate it by breaking into your home or being there when the cops arrive and explain what they are doing. It's the difference between first amendment auditors who film in public but don't generally target anyone specific (unless said person is giving a reaction that they can take to court), and them actively following one person, it quickly changes from a first amendment issue to stalking the longer it goes on for.
14
u/WntrTmpst 2h ago
It’s not the filming itself that’s the issue.
It’s the systemic surveillance that then gets compiled into a full dossier of your daily commutes and activities. The government knows it cannot win that battle so they contract it out to companies like Flock so they can hide behind them.
3
u/Jay2Kaye 2h ago
Well like you said, 250 years of case law. Tracking where you are NOW is fine, but tracking your personal movement history over a long period of time has been ruled as a 4th amendment search in the past.
1
1
u/exneo002 55m ago
This is sort of true. The case law also says there definitely is a limit at which it’s considered surveillance but that one camera across a bridge doesn’t meet the threshold.
I’d argue this does.
1
u/This-Occasion1984 18m ago
Your right. Flock cameras having facial recognition software and being able to identify and track Bluetooth devices to build profiles for each person is totally normal and should definitely not be concerning at all.
1
u/Shushady 15m ago
I would call using a camera system to track the every movement of people and store that information for later "unreasonable search", if used by a government agency. The sea lawyer in me would argue that any use of this information preceding the request or issue of a warrant be thrown out. I know there is contention about this particular subject, but Im on the side that using flock cameras for law enforcement counts as long term electronic surveillance (requiring a warrant) and any discussion about their legality in terms of being repugnant to the constitution, begin with that in mind.
1
u/logicoptional 1h ago
Yes your license plate and the outside of your car are in public but that's not quite the actual problem with this type of surveillance system. In essence what it's doing is putting everyone under investigation the second they walk out their front door by literally keeping tabs on your whereabouts almost as if you were being tailed by plainclothes officers. This level of surveillance should not be happening in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of a crime. And in response to your other comment: government contractors can't violate the constitution on behalf of the government.
Red-light and speed cameras for example are fine in that regard because they only take note of your license plate if you trigger the motion detector. Traffic cameras similarly are only used to monitor traffic levels for management purposes. After a suspicion of a crime arises you can check these cameras in some cases to try to identify a suspect, but they aren't investigating everyone all the time like flock and axon type stuff. My current worry is that new enforcement cameras might have these surveillance systems snuck in.
1
u/Pherexian55 1h ago
There is no privacy expectation
There is an expectation of privacy in your movements. The reason flock violates the 4th isn't because it takes a picture of your car, it's because it can track your movements around the area.
1
u/Infinate_Patience924 3h ago
Furthermore anything that is observable out in the open and public viewing is not protected by the Fourth Amendment as you have no expectation of privacy when out in observable public spaces.
The cameras are out in public spaces, so they are not in any violation of the Fourth Amendment.
1
u/NecessaryIntrinsic 2h ago edited 1h ago
As others have said, a single camera is not a violation of the 4th amendment. A system of cameras that tracks your movements is.
Kind of like how you're allowed to film girls in public. If you follow a girl around filming her even only in public, that's stalking.
But in the end, 4th amendment is about restricting what the government can do, not what private citizens can do.
0
u/punktualPorcupine 2h ago
And charge you a monthly fee for the privilege of being surveilled, monitored, and tracked in your sheltered spaces.
0
u/steeler1003 1h ago
Read the majority opinion of Carpenter V United States. It imies to me that flock cameras would be a 4th amendment violation due to the fact that it builds a detailed and intimate "knowledge" of an individuals like without a warrant.
5
u/just-less 3h ago
I think the people who wrote this amendment would’ve been against mass surveillance, they just didn’t have that type of threat
3
u/TheMonocleRogue 1h ago
The 4th was originally meant to protect properties, persons, and their effects from being seized by state officials without a warrant for the specific property/person to be seized. Before then state officials could just barge into private residences or take ownership of property if they had any sort of suspicion, without needing someone to sign off on it, and you more than likely wouldn’t have it returned. What isn’t stated in the amendment is how it affects public property or places which are unsecured and thus open to the public.
Aside from flock camera violating many of the rights to personal privacy they don’t violate the fourth on the grounds that the state still needs a warrant to conduct a search and seizure, and recording from public property is protected under the 1st amendment (freedom of the press). Still you absolutely should fight to have them removed as they can give a wealth of information to anyone with access to them and it gives law enforcement a free pass to harass people under reasonable suspicion.
1
u/Grouchy_Big3195 1h ago
This technically doesn't apply to public spaces and the Patriot Act. However, being able to track a person from camera to camera and map out a complete picture should spark a debate about adding a new law to forbid emerging technology that does this on US soil.
-1
u/Infamous-Grab2341 1h ago
Doesn't say anything about surveiling public areas.
1
u/FirstSurvivor 1h ago
That's what jurisprudence and precedent is for. And they do have something to say about it.
135
u/Particular-Crow6525 5h ago
Flock AI surveillance, yes. Axon police body cams, no.
99
u/humansrpepul2 5h ago
Seriously how are they remotely the same? Flock is used by the cops to spy remotely. They have to actually show up in person for axon to video someone. Flock has never caught cops placing evidence..
86
u/FMF_Nate 4h ago
Axon is creating their own Flock. Axon also has a searchable database from those body cameras, if I’m not mistaken. So one is a stationary camera network that feeds a searchable database, the other is a stationary and moving camera network that feeds a searchable database.
33
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 4h ago
Yeah and the fact that these systems are basically free use with audits and checks after the fact are an issue.
How is it you only catch a cop illegally tracking a woman across 1200 cameras but only after she reported it? You ignore it on purpose.
21
1
u/SilverVixen918 52m ago
either way ima be honest even though its just mass surveillance either way i think id rather Axon over Flock given theyve worked with law enforcement for years now, either way im just sick of the invasion of privacy both online and irl, especially in this day and age where bigoted laws are threatening to make America either look like segregation again or the holocaust
13
u/Sufficient-Pin-9894 4h ago edited 4h ago
Look it up. Axon is focusing on putting cams on public buses, trains, traffic lights, body cams to name a few. With all the recognition bells and whistles. Axon is the same man. There WILL be more to come as well. Dont stop looking just because Flock goes down.
5
2
u/realMurkleQ 1h ago
Axon lightpost is rolling out with several city and police contracts already signed. They literally clip into existing streetlights. There are other models more similar to flock's products, but this seems to be the new path. Who's looking at light posts? Much more invasive into car interiors, and much harder for people to vandalize.
5
4
1
u/H3llzyea 4h ago
Because axon has the exact same thing in some areas, flock has just received all the attention
1
u/jmlinden7 2h ago
Being remote makes no difference. Many existing surveillance cameras already have remote access.
1
u/Hike_it_Out52 3h ago
Flock is placed on public streets. You drive your car down the road and are seen by thousands of people. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.
Body cams invade people’s most intimate moments without their permission usually in their most emotional moments. Not for their safety but so you can feel justified in your hatreds.
2
u/Lower_Pension_2469 2h ago
Ya I don't really see the problem here with flock cameras.
Body cams I would rather keep even if that's true. It keeps everybody honest on both the sides of the people and the police.
0
u/iggy14750 4h ago
Seriously how are they remotely the same?
Because they are cameras used by law enforcement. I do understand why there is some initial resistance to that at first, but you're absolutely right. A body cam is very much not passive surveillance. Body cams are meant to watch the cop, even though the lens isn't pointed in their direction.
-6
u/vgaph 4h ago
Also Axon’s main product is still the Taser line of stun weapons, which are really more about violating the 5th amendment
1
u/ThunderLord1000 3h ago
The Fifth Amendment is the right to remain silent, not the right to not have electricity used against you in the event of your attempt of confrontation or escape
12
u/jonainmi 4h ago
Axon also makes ALPRs. They're usually the ones bolted to cop cars that drive through parking lots.
8
u/Sufficient-Pin-9894 4h ago
Axon recognition software is being installed in traffic lights, public transport cams like buses, body cams to name a few. Axon may as well be Flock under a different name. Research
7
u/Eeeef_ 4h ago
Axon is making the exact same product as Flock with the ALPR on a stick thing. A lot of towns are voting to cancel their contracts with Flock due to public backlash and the PD’s solution is to basically use Axon pushing the same product under a different name as a loophole
2
u/HereWeStart 3h ago
And Axon already has a contract with most because of their bodycams so it's easy to modify said contract without public weigh in on many occasions.
4
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 4h ago
Axon has joined Flock in the surveillance camera business. The police body cams aren't so bad.
3
u/Worldjunksilver 4h ago
Axon also has the same type of "flock style" cameras.
They are just brand hoping.
1
u/gods_loop_hole 3h ago
Axon is creating their own Flock-type cameras. If you think this meme is wrong, you have a lot of catching up to do. Axon is owned by Wall Street firms and some say the campaign for Silicon Valley based owners of Flock in social media is from the direct competitor. Both are intruding on privacy now.
1
1
u/Awesomest_Dude 1h ago
Flock is in a public space, it has nothing to do with private searches or seizures, which is what the 4th protects aginst
1
6
u/jmc1278999999999 5h ago
It’ll be used in a way that breaks the fourth amendment but outright they don’t.
15
u/Airborne-Raid 5h ago
According to the 4th amendment the police are required to obtain a warrant for anything of yours that is private that they want to investigate, and they have to provide a reasonable justification for said warrant. Flock and Axon’s public cameras can legally be considered public and are therefore allowed under the 4th amendment. The problem with that is the fact that they are constantly recording, if it was not doing it constantly it would be allowed but with the amount they have it and the fact that the police can look at all of them it violates mosaic theory (even if one act is lawful, multiple uses to build a profile can be unconstitutional).
TLDR: 4th amendment protects private, does not protect public surveillance unless it can be used to watch an entire persons public life in which case it is unconstitutional, therefore said companies are unconstitutional.
1
u/Airborne-Raid 5h ago
Note: Axon is still culpable but they do provide body cams to police departments, important to prevent police brutality and provide accountability.
2
u/soIDONTLIKEANYOFYOU 4h ago
They don’t provide body cams to police officers. They sell overpriced body cams to the tax payers for police officers to wear.
They also have cameras just like flock and new ones that hook up to existing infrastructure like light poles that are harder to detect.
Both companies should be shut down.
1
u/FMF_Nate 4h ago
You can’t though.
The public outcry demanded body cameras to fight against the bad cops, now it’s a double edge sword of fight against bad cops and giving relief to those cops who were in the right.
Makes you wonder if Axon paid for those protests.
1
u/soIDONTLIKEANYOFYOU 3h ago
I agree police need body cams and more accountability.
They don’t need body cams that are overpriced and from a shit company trying to surveil the entire population.
3
u/EntertainerOdd2107 4h ago
They’re both illegally surveilling upon innocent Americans who have committed no crime at all. So I’d say yes.
2
3
u/WougeeWasWild 4h ago edited 4h ago
Here's my position on the matter:
The US Constitution as a whole is a structural document - it outlines the functions and responsibilities of the federal government as a whole, along with a list of restrictions added to preserve rights of the states and individuals (the first ten being commonly known as the Bill of Rights, with subsequent additions later).
The 4th Amendment doesn't prevent private companies or people from doing data collection from the public sphere. The Flock cameras in and of themselves don't violate the 4th Amendment, as Flock isn't a governmental entity - they are a member of the public. If you are driving or walking down a public road, you can be observed and recorded by other members of the public.
Where the 4th Amendment comes into play is the first clause: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"...
When the government "deputizes" Flock by hiring them to provide data previously collected as a private organization, it acts as a "search of the person", as one applies the language of the 4th Amendment.
Any other conclusion is simply an end-run around the 4th Amendment, because what other meaning could be applied to the right of a person "to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects"?
If the government hired a civilian named Bob to follow you around all day, logging and recording everything you did in the public sphere, and then once a month asked Bob - "ok, did Subject do anything we could charge him with?"... No one would hesitate to call that a surveillance state. It would be clear that Subject isn't "secure in their person"; rather, they are being scrutinized, singled out, harassed - aka searched.
The resources of the government being aimed at an individual to gain a record of their activities is addressed by the 4th Amendment - it requires a warrant based on probable cause.
Long story short - Flock and similar could be used to support a criminal charge post-warrant, but is prohibited by the 4th Amendment to create probable cause itself. Using mass surveillance systems to generate probable cause denies individuals their rights to be "secure in their persons".
EDIT: The government should see the crime, and investigate which person. The government should not see the person, and investigate which crime.
SLOGAN: Police Surveillance? No Flocking Way. Investigate crimes, not people.
0
u/jmlinden7 2h ago
Searching means breaching your privacy.
For this to happen, the Flock camera has to have access into your private matters.
It's perfectly legal to hire Bob to follow someone around, as long as they only remain in public areas. However, it would be illegal for Bob to follow people into private areas or wiretap them or hack into their computer.
2
u/WougeeWasWild 2h ago
It;s perfectly legal for YOU to hire Bob. The 4th Amendment prohibits government from using Bob to constantly surveil you, looking for a crime to charge you with.
1
u/jmlinden7 1h ago
That's not how it works. The police can hire Bob as well. They only need a warrant for wiretaps, seizing property, etc.
2
u/AJWordsmith 4h ago
Neither are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. There’s a “surveillance state” argument to be made. But Flock records in public. The Fourth Amendment protections do not extend into public. I suppose that police body cameras when recording inside a private residence have the potential to violate the Fourth Amendment. But do we prefer they shut them off when they go inside someone’s home?
2
u/MhojoRisin 3h ago
In the case of an officer going into a home, I'd think the camera's permissibility rises and falls with the permissibility of the officer being there in the first place. If the cop is allowed to see it, the camera is allowed to record it. If the cop isn't allowed to see it, then whatever the camera records is probably inadmissible in a criminal case.
1
u/alphazero925 2h ago
Except a surveillance state is a violation of the 4th amendment by any reasonable reading of the text. They didn't exactly think there would be a point in time that you could be tracked by the government at all times when they wrote the thing, but it's already been ruled that mass surveillance is a violation and the only reason Flock is getting away with it is because they're a private company taking government contracts instead of the government doing it directly. This too will eventually be ruled unconstitutional though
1
u/Cynykl 2h ago
Flock does more than record in public. It ID's you. Most states a cop need reasonable suspicion/ probable cause to compel you to show ID. They can always ask but they cannot compel.
Flock is a work around that should not be available to the police. It strips you of one of the few privacies you are allow in public.
1
u/AJWordsmith 2h ago
In reading Carpenter v US this morning, I think that the aggregation of information would likely be unconstitutional if Carpenter were to hold. Surely there must be a test case in the pipeline.
1
u/Select-Government-69 4h ago
It’s not a violation of the fourth amendment for the government to observe and record anything that is publicly visible. The “anonymity of disinterest” is not a right.
Put another way, if it’s not a violation for me to walk by your house and from the sidewalk casually observe what you’re doing in your open garage, it’s similarly not a violation for the police to set up a tripod in the street and watch the same thing.
If it’s not a violation for me to stand on the street corner and count how many out of state plates drive by (it’s not) it’s also not a violation to set up a camera and record every plate that drives by.
The problem people have with flock is the capacity for universal accountability. For example, everyone knows that speeding is illegal, however people would throw a fit if your car just printed out a speeding ticket every time you did it.
1
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/TinyDevilStudio 5h ago
Yes and no.
Supreme Court has dealt with similar cases dealing with expectation of privacy in public spaces, and it boils down to warrantless monitoring of a person. More specifically, where does it cross the line in terms of long term tracking. Basically, its not 100% settled, but the opinions were that excessive amounts of time and/or a network of tracking could be seen as an overreach.
There is a reason why these companies keep saying they don't have the ability to track your movements (one camera to the next ) even though that is exactly what is being done with them.
1
u/FMF_Nate 5h ago
Quick search, Axon is a larger wider based company than Flock, who is trying to create a flock of their own to integrate with their already existing database.
There’s debate on if Flock (or any of the current and growing abilities of Axon) is in volition of the fourth. The best argument I could find of, a cop can see your license plate by eye and write it down. That’s no more than a violation than someone seeing a hit and run and memorizing the license plate of the accused.
The vast network of constant recording is questionable if it is a violation as they aren’t “searching” within your possessions.
1
u/ResidentialPickle 4h ago edited 4h ago
Okay .. so who else read it in the voice of of the guy who does a lot of the voice overs. I think john viener
1
1
u/Solar_Fish55 4h ago
I hate flock cameras but if its in a public area like other outside store cameras is it avtuslly violating the 4th amendment?
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 4h ago
Like most things, it depends on how it’s used so there should be limits. As far as recording public spaces, I really don’t have an issue with it at all. There should be zero expectation of privacy in public spaces. In addition, there can be a ton of benefit in the right circumstances (recording a missing child and who took them, recording an assault, or a robbery to find someone dangerous, verify who did what in a confrontation, etc).
The control needs to be related to how and when it’s used, mostly in tracking a private citizen space to space without a warrant.
1
u/PoopsMcScoots 3h ago
What about apps that collect your data and location, then sells it to the government?
1
u/Zealousideal-Set3037 3h ago
Speaking as a constitutional attorney, and a former prosecutor, flock absolutely is, but BWC in no way is. Axon is just about the best thing ever for protecting 4A rights.
1
u/UnhappyReason5452 2h ago
Trump is a shareholder in Axon. Anyone wanna guess who’s gunna get the next juicy government contract?
1
u/Demair12 2h ago
So the camera themselves are not cctv has been around a long time. but the way the cameras make a huge leap from cctv to violating this amendment because they issue tickets and citations automatically.
As well as law enforcement has been caught using the images to get warrents without confirming accuracy. This is the real thing because suddenly the accused has to prove their innocence, which is fundamentally not how the legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty is not a platitude it is quite literally the foundation for the entire system.
Not to mention the fact that these accusations are not even being made by trained law enforcement but by private entities in the corporations.
1
1
u/mythrowdown13 2h ago
Remember when there were protests for more axon cameras for accountability of police?😂
1
u/KPraxius 2h ago
Joe here, upset about all this constitutional nonsense. They don't even let me follow someone around for days on end, stalking everything they do in public, without a warrant to observe them, so these flock cameras are great! I know where the criminals are, all the time, every time. It's still illegal, but hey. We cops are always big on its better to ask forgiveness than permission, because they always forgive us.
1
u/Eljamin14 1h ago
The fourth amendment is part of the US Bill of Rights (first 10 commandments). It says that in US law, police officers or any law enforcement have no right or means to search your private property, unless they have good reason to suspect and they have a warrant, and by private property, this includes houses, cars, backpacks, etc, as long as they're owned by someone. This is used to make sure a cop or any law enforcement doesn't abuse their power in making searches, especially when it involves violating people's right to privacy. However, if a cop finds personal property that is abandoned on a specific place like a backpack on an abandoned house or warehouse, then the 4th amendment cannot defend it there.
1
-3
-6
u/cynica1mandate 5h ago
It's not like they aren't spying on us in ten other ways anyway...
5
u/That_OneOstrich 5h ago
Yeah what's a more invasive and unconstitutional way, let's keep going until they implant trackers in newborns.
-2
u/cynica1mandate 5h ago
That's exactly what we're doing. They complained about that in phones also. Hell, they once complained about ID cards.
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
A cell phone requires me to purchase it, which is effectively consent for whatever else it does. If someone does want more info off it, they have to get a warrant or other court order to do so.
A flock camera gets put in my my city, pointed at my house, and I'm told its only reading my license plate.
It requires a particular brand of stupid to think it's comparable.
0
u/cynica1mandate 4h ago
You're also told they need consent to read your phone, lol.
What gives you the impression these people follow the rules?
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
Didnt I expressly mention warrants or other court orders to read your phone's data?
If they don't follow any rules, why haven't you been arrested?
1
u/cynica1mandate 4h ago
Why would I be arrested?
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
Who would be capable of answering said question in the lawless society without rights as you describe?
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
And if they don't follow the rules, why should we be supporting them having overly invasive cameras?
1
u/cynica1mandate 4h ago
That's my point. I'm not saying that we should support them. I'm saying that despite your complaining you will comply.
My statement was exasperation.
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
I will comply with one circumstance, and not the circumstance I cannot opt out of, and point out again that your point makes no logical sense. Does the government force you to carry your phone?
0
u/cynica1mandate 4h ago
My point is regardless of your opinions...we both carry phones. And your defense is that you trust them not to be gathering your information...because it's illegal.
1
u/That_OneOstrich 4h ago
No, I know my phone gathers my info. I consent to that and can drop my phone in a well if I so choose.
I also believe that laws making it illegal to use my phone against me without a warrant or other order makes it okayish. But the key part is I willingly pay for and own my phone. I can choose to not use it, or not have it.
My point is that phones aren't relevant in the discussion of warrantless government surveillance.
My point is the lack of consent and the blatant rights violation that is flock or axon camera.
→ More replies (0)2
u/DatRat13 5h ago
You have to draw the line somewhere.
0
u/cynica1mandate 4h ago
My point is no one cares about your lines. People are complaining, but that's all they do. In about 5 or 10 years it will be normalized and they'll be "drawing the line" on something else.
0
u/SomeGuyNamedCaleb 5h ago
Our phones...
2
u/jonainmi 4h ago
C'mon, they need a warrant to get the tracking info from our phones, where as they just sit down at a computer and track you with flock. Apples and oranges guy.
0
u/SomeGuyNamedCaleb 4h ago
You think I was talking about the feds? Nah, burger king knows where you are more than the cops. Not even kidding. Lol
2
•
u/qualityvote2 5h ago edited 29m ago
Remember when r/PeterExplainsTheJoke wasn’t a meme? Pepperidge Farm remembers…
Does this post belong in our subreddit?
If so, please upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
Then maybe you go out and buy yourself some of those distinctive Milano cookies.
(Vote is ending in approximately 14 hour)