The Supreme Court Just Lit a Fuse Under Flock's License Plate Camera Empire

josefritzishere

It is self-evident that a very narrow examination of a very narrow data set is different than the 24/7 unlimited surveillance of everything. The law should support this basic proposition no matter where they decide the dividing line is. Flock is on the wrong side of an open air prison. I hope they lose.

mannanj

Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be. You can still pay your use tax and be a good citizen, and in fact, its probably a better demonstration of your duties as a citizen to protect the right to privacy and say to your local governments that have a history of abusing and selling vehicle registration data to 3rd parties that you do not tolerate that. Happy to share more, the sites for Montana registration can be shady but the dirt legal one is great.

twoodfin

To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case. But the headline and narrative paint a way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie ’s impact. In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party-owned recordings of public movement.

maxlybbert

I really hope this doesn’t turn into yet another case of judges looking at irrelevant facts when making decisions. The fourth amendment does not say “private conversations,” so when police started tapping phones, the courts focused on whether the phone tap physically intruded on somebody’s house, papers, or effects. Police apparently could tap phone conversations by watching reflections on a nearby window, and the fourth amendment didn’t apply because there was no physical intrusion. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test come from Katz v. US ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/ ) where the Supreme Court realized that whether there was a physical intrusion was irrelevant.

827a

The argument I struggle to get around and would love to hear a counter-argument to: Let's say a local police department hired 175 police officers, each being told "Go stand on this particular intersection with a pad of paper and write down every license plate you see". This would be a stupid use of resources, but is not outside the realm of something a well-funded police department could do. Every night they take their reports back to HQ, and file them away. This is a modestly different situation than one concerning warrantless tracking of phone locations, if for no other reason than my phone oftentimes in my pocket. It is not always visible to onlooking bystanders. And even if it isn't, externally there is no reliably way to differentiate one iPhone from another. In comparison: license plates, when in public, are always visible, and very easy to discern from one-another (different state-unique numbers); so in my mind the expectation of privacy is far lower. I abhor what Flock does, but I'm not sure I see a constitutional argument for why what they do is unconstitutional.

FireBeyond

It's very telling that Flock has only just hired a CISO recently. Garrett doesn't care much for anything that might hint at compliance for data sharing.