upvote

points

by delichon3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 1970-01-012 hours ago|
next
[-]

     ..."and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It was an attempt to secure privacy. "Their" means an individual, a person. Essentially, you control what you control, and do not need to give up this control unless there is suspicion of crime.
reply
upvoteby delichon2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you want to change "their" to mean "data about them" rather than "data owned by them" you have to not give precedence to the original public meaning. The result of that is that ordinary people are in a worse position to know what the law means, because it can fundamentally change by reinterpreting a word.
reply
upvoteby simoncion2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"data owned by them" is one's papers and/or effects, depending. "data about them" pretty much didn't exist in the late 1700's when we compare it to the enormous scale of that data today. A combination of the third-party doctrine and legal restraints that prevent it from being turned into dragnet surveillance is more or less what applies to that.

There are also the rights of the people to peaceably assemble -both publicly and privately-, peaceably speak publicly, and peaceably bring their grievances to the various governments that govern them. All of those rights interact with regulation of the things we're talking about here... it's not just the 4th amendment that's relevant.

reply
upvoteby esmIII1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I would love an amendment that adds communications and movements to that list
reply
upvoteby WarmWash2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
These cameras are in public, where expectation of privacy has been ruled against a zillion times.

Go against this, and filming your kids baseball game becomes a legal nightmare.

reply
upvoteby mlsu2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It seems very easy. Always on spy camera installed for the express purpose of dragnet surveillance? Illegal. Film child’s baseball game? Legal.

I find this attitude I find kind of tiring. Gosh it’s just sooo hard to figure out the difference between Flock Safety and Big Bill’s Little League Sports Photography. It’s actually very straightforward to determine the difference between these two things. So easy, an idiot could do it. Or a judge.

reply
upvoteby LeonKnst1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
While I do agree it's tiring and agree with your point I think the issue is finding the exact point to draw the line. It's easy to differentiate the two ends.
reply
upvoteby MrDrMcCoy58 seconds ago|
parent|
[-]
I think the operative difference here is that in the case of the little league photography, the cameras are not fixed in place, are temporary, and are not set up with the intent to capture the identity and actions of everyone in the background. Fixed-installation cameras are permanent, do attempt to capture all possible subjects in its frame, and have an alternate, obvious intent to identify them all. I don't think a Private investigator, paparazzi, or parked police cruiser on a stakeout represent anywhere near the same practical or legal problems as fixed, always-on surveillance cameras. As such, this seems to me like a good place to draw the line.
reply
upvoteby AngryData21 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
By this logic I could track you 24/7 with a squadron of drones flying 4 feet above you watching your every movement including through all your windows.
reply
upvoteby TehCorwiz2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Haven't stalking and surveillance always had a different interpretation despite mostly taking place in public?
reply
upvoteby simoncion2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Haven't stalking and surveillance always had a different interpretation despite mostly taking place in public?

Yep. And dragnet surveillance has (pretty much?) always been illegal in the US... but it takes the courts an awfully long time to notice the new dragnets the cops set up.

For example, despite the fact that the third-party doctrine says that cops can just walk up and get any ordinary business records someone you do business with has created about you, courts continue to notice and declare illegal new ways in which naive application of that doctrine creates dragnets.

reply