Federal judge rules Flock violated the fourth amendment

BugsJustFindMe

> post title: Federal judge rules Flock violated the fourth amendment Please fix this wrong title. The judge ruled that searching the data without a warrant or probable cause violated the fourth amendment. It's wrong to say that the problem was the cameras and not the warrantless use of the data. Literally in the tweet: "police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching [ALPR data] without a warrant"

polski-g

This title is 100% false. It is not possible for a private company to "violate the 4th amendment". The Bill of Rights constrains the government, not private parties.

dfltr

> But by virtue of how ALPR technology works, Alaniz and other officers using these systems have access to a continuously updated location history for all vehicles caught on ALPR cameras within the network. This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand. For those saying that the headline is incorrect, I disagree. I believe that the judge's ruling was specifically that Flock's mass surveillance network is, in itself, a violation of the fourth amendment.