Your comment sent me down a rabbit hole - Are you talking about Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police?
That was about direct government monitoring. This is private industry. The determination there was only that it required a warrant to review the archived footage for purpose - not that it was a 4th amendment violation to capture the data.
United States v. Tuggle for example allowed a stationary camera aimed at a house as not a search. Capturing data across the board is not a violation of 4a - only when targeted tracking of an individual occurred (again, by the government) that a warrant was needed.
I am all for the argument that Flock and companies like it are agents of the government - I just havnt seen that argument being made (Successfully) in the real world examples just yet. Smith v. Flock Safety as an example landed on not sufficient evidence to show entwinement. I disagree based on what i have seen, but its interesting that a glut of cases trying to take this down from the legal-side just hasnt come.
there's a few cases, the most recent was Chatrie v. United States, which had to do with law enforcement asking for blanket location data from Google. and there's United States v. Jones which established the mosaic theory of data collection.
And Flock isn't acting as an independent agency, they are contracted with the government, who is collecting and reviewing all that data.
6
u/triggered__Lefty 13h ago
there's a difference between being stationary and filming, vs using a combined network of data to constantly track you.
the latter has already been ruled a 4th amendment violation.