You must log in or register to comment.
- 2 days
Maybe protect from the raw public. But from private brokers, heavily doubt it.
- 3 days
I’m really curious as to whether this will impact the build out of the surveillance state, particularly in regards to Flock and other ALPRs. Or is a phone’s location history somehow sacrosanct while an image on a camera is not?
- 2 days
Calling Flock “ALPR” is dangerously misleading. They track faces, phones, wireless headphones, smartwatches, clothing/outfits, distinctive scrapes and dents on cars, and more.
- 3 days
IDK if it will directly impact Flocks - although I don’t know it won’t. But at the very least, it helps build momentum. There is a national level, bipartisan bill to heavily restrict ALPR now. The more legal momentum there is vs related issues like geofence requests, the easier it is for that to pass. Also a lot of municipalities have already banned ALPRs locally, so that also helps build momentum.
I fucking hate ALPRs.
- 3 days
More of us doing the stronger we all are!! The more of us there are the stronger we are!! Unity, coordination, and logistics!!
- DevoidWisdom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish3 days
Some flock were installed recently on my preferred route to work, so I changed my route a street over. Ive read one too many stories of people wrongly arrested just because they were shown to be in the area. I hope this somehow limits all this surveillance of normal everyday people, but I won’t hold my breath.
- heavy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish3 days
Shouldn’t this also apply to cameras and audio recording devices going up everywhere without consent?
- 3 days
Shouldn’t this also apply to cameras and audio recording devices going up everywhere
It only applies to the government, by requiring 4A protections for geofence requests. A judicial warrant will be needed for the cops to go to Google or w/e and say, “Give us everyone in this area on Tuesday Aug 9th”. Which ofc will include innocent ppl along with the accused. It won’t directly efffect private recording and data collection.
There are tricky issues around private collection. Conflicting rights between parties, even. Anyway, it’s possible that this + other cases like Carpenter v. United States could restrict gov purchases of loc data on the open market, not just direct requests to Google. NAL, and IDK how it might go. I imagine we might see further lawsuits as this bubbles through the legal system and there are 2ndary issues that arise from it.
- 2 days
naw without that they would need location tracking to not be protected. but as long as alternative ways to track location exists then sure, let them believe they aren’t being tracked. its good publicity.
- 3 days
Hey but all of you here dont disengage stay focused, grow the movement, and keep doing. The more of us doing the more we can make better for this, and many other things. We need a Fluxer Discord-like community to inform, discuss, collaborate and coordinate in real-time
- 3 days
What about States with 2-party consent laws? I’ve often wondered if its ever going to become a class action suite for all the audio monitoring, and not just the audible trigger words for home assistants. I’m talking anytime you have a conversation about something you see ads. I’m really sick of me and my wife’s or kids’ arguments becoming divisive ads that pop up moments later which only adds fuel to the fire
I think two party consent will be broadly ruled unconstitutional if it ever gets that far up nowadays. It’s already not applicable to public recording.
- 3 days
I’m wondering if FBI/NSA/CIA will actually honor the ruling, assuming it holds?
- 3 days
Doubtful. All they have to do is cry “terrorism” and they’re allowed to do whatever they want.
- 3 days
please avoid from using the word honor while mentioning the great satan. the last 20 attempts at diplomacy with iran tell you they’re lying bastards and their word is worth a thousand shits.
This sounds like a great step in the right direction. Would this have any effect retrospectively?
- 3 days
Disclaimer -> NAL. I think it’s extraordinarily rare for rulings to have retroactive effect. If sth was legal when you did it, you can’t be held to account if that thing becomes illegal later on. That would open up all kinds of bad probs. Editing to add, your ability to follow the law today, can’t require that you successfully predict future laws or future court decisions.
But geo-fence data already collected would fall under this decision in the future. So let’s say there’s 2024 data. Data still exists on some Google server. Now it’s 2028. Cops would need a warrant to obtain the 2024 data in 2028.
That’s my understanding. Again NAL.
A definitely not l lawyer ,but also though that, not knowing/understanding a law usually does not shield you from said law, right? And doesn’t the ruling mainly clarify what the law actually “means”?
If that is the case I could still try actions made in the past, no?
