upvote

points

by lovich1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby Jtsummers1 days ago|
next
[-]
It's already been decided by SCOTUS that things like heat imaging require a warrant, and that arbitrary scanning without a warrant (or presumably also probable cause) is a violation of the 4th amendment. This technology (still science fiction) would likely get similar treatment using the existing precedent about how new technologies can be used.
reply
upvoteby kunai1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The easy workaround for this (which Flock has used to massive success and why it's drawn so much ire) is to set up or subcontract a private corporation to do this which will inherently be subject to much less stringent oversight. It also allows government and law enforcement to evade accountability.
reply
upvoteby Jtsummers1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The legal arguments against Flock are different than the legal arguments against thermal imaging by the police (without a warrant or probably cause). And the latter is closer to the hypothetical broad mind reading (science fiction, again) than it is to Flock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States - The case I was referencing.

reply
upvoteby LPisGood1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
Like I said, it is the philosophical basis.
reply
upvoteby lovich17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ok? The philosophical basis is only loosely correlated with the legal basis which is what the person you replied to asked.

Again look at the run around on the fourth amendment or the commerce clause ruling that made it so growing wheat for your own consumption was legally considered interstate commerce.

reply
upvoteby LPisGood14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don’t think what you’re describing is a run around. The fourth amendment rulings and the interstate commerce rulings are logically consistent with the principles of the constitution:
reply
upvoteby lovich5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
lol, don’t think we have the same mindset then.

The fourth is effectively gone in the digital age since so much activity is done via third parties who the government can compel to hand over your information.

And for the interstate commerce clause they twisted it to argue that completely _intrastate_ commerce was actually interstate commerce because you would have bought the goods from other states if you didn’t make it yourself[1].

I’m not even opposed to the ruling in terms of what the government should be doing, but you are being blind if you think that’s logically consistent. There’s no reason the constitution would specify “…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

It would have just said they had the power to regulate commerce.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

reply