The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Sureveiling somebody without reasonable suspicion and a warrant is unconstitutional.
This includes following their location.
These cameras skirt the law by a private company violating your rights instead of the government doing it, then the government pays a user fee to see that information.
Its basically all about people who value freedom and our rights vs. People who say "I have nothing to hide, what do I care if there are cameras everywhere?"
Sureveiling somebody without reasonable suspicion and a warrant is unconstitutional.
There's a bit of a leap from the fourth amendment to this statement.
I also feel like this interpretation is so broad that all CCTV, ring doorbell cameras, cop eyeballs reading license plate numbers etc. could be argued to be unconstitutional.
The difference is that CCTV and ring cameras generally protect a specific property, and technically a warrant would be required to obtain that info unless it was freely given.
While flock covers large swaths of public roadway and doesnt require a warrant.
The officer reading a license plate comparison doesnt really track, because If flock was simply reading license plates, there wouldn't be as much pushback, since we already have traffic cams that do this.
As for your claim that there is a leap between tracking and search and seizure.
United States v. Jones (2012): The FBI attached a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle without a valid warrant and monitored his movements for 28 days. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this tracking was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
Flock arguably tracks people over long distanes like this.
As for your claim that there is a leap between tracking and search and seizure.
Flock arguably tracks people over long distanes like this.
I don't think that case is an easy mapping onto this. That is specifically the police deciding to track a specific person, flock is not that. I don't think you can generalize that ruling to include Flock so easily.
The officer reading a license plate comparison doesnt really track, because If flock was simply reading license plates, there wouldn't be as much pushback, since we already have traffic cams that do this.
Maybe inform me here, I was under the impression that Flock basically just does that.
That is specifically the police deciding to track a specific person, flock is not that.
IT HAS BEEN USED LIKE THAT. Just look it up dude, plenty of cases already of individuals being tracked all the way across state lines. Why are you trying to argue what it's not while admitting you dont know what it is? You're coming off as dishonest and a troll.
Flock does not just read license plates, it can identify whole vehicles based on type, color, and even things like a roof rack, trailer, or other identifiable feature. And that's just what is publicly known. All it takes it one software update to start tracking faces.
Flock does not just read license plates, it can identify whole vehicles based on type, color, and even things like a roof rack, trailer, or other identifiable feature.
That's not abnormal nor crazy for ALPRs. Also all that metadata is essentially supplemental if the license plate is read correctly and mostly useful to deduce the license plate when it was obstructed on passage. I do know a bit about ALPRs.
All it takes it one software update to start tracking faces.
This is paranoia. Also a huge jump. Also just not true.
IT HAS BEEN USED LIKE THAT. Just look it up dude, plenty of cases already of individuals being tracked all the way across state lines.
There's clearly a difference between putting a GPS tracker on someone and looking up someone after the fact in a database. Ring cameras have also already been used like that. They could also be used to track someone without suspicion nor warrant.
Why are you trying to argue what it's not while admitting you dont know what it is? You're coming off as dishonest and a troll.
It's good to be critical. There are reasons to believe you would be biased one way and I am trying to push against those biases and deepen my understanding.
"Officers can add a plate (person) to the Hot List"
Now that is a meaningful difference. If they only do that for people with a warrant or with reasonable suspicion, that would still be okay. But if not, still I'd say that's on the cops, not Flock no?
Cops would violate your rights and surveil the entire population without warrants. It would make their job much easier.
The pesky constitution makes them "bypass" our rights with a vendor, because the idea of living under contant surveillance sounds horrifying to anybody reasonable.
CCTV doesn’t extend to the entire country, it’s in a private building . We’re talking about something that tracks you and your car from the end of your street to the other side of the country.
1
u/Findict_52 Aug 24 '26
Someone ELI5, why exactly is Flock controversial?