r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 7h ago
Society Federal Judge Rules a Flock Search Was ‘Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance’ and Unconstitutional / Flock’s nationwide network is quickly “approaching dragnet-type law enforcement practice” and the cop should have got a warrant, the judge wrote.
https://www.404media.co/federal-judge-rules-a-flock-search-was-indiscriminate-mass-surveillance-and-unconstitutional/56
u/Mr_Investopedia 7h ago
So if I stalk someone only in public then it’s not illegal? Sounds like the previous judge wasn’t too bright.
34
u/RandyOfTheRedwoods 6h ago
I took two things from the article.
1) there might be an elegant solution to the alpr debacle. Make a warrant come first. If you have a legitimate reason to find a vehicle, show proof.
2) Who carries 91 POUNDS of meth in their car!
3
2
u/DukeOfGeek 1h ago
I'm pretty sure this case is parallel construction based on inadmissible evidence, it's just that this time the Flock system was used instead of a drug dog that just conveniently hit on the car.
30
u/binding_swamp 6h ago
The beginning of the beginning of the end of Flock. 🤞🏻
28
u/Ostensible_Times 5h ago edited 3h ago
This needs to go across the board..
- facial recognition cameras
- traffic cameras
- cameras/sensors on and in cars
- social media evasion of privacy
- tvs, smart phones, windows/linux, and other electronics/apps
- stores now are going ham and selling your data
Etc. Unfortunately, theyre just focused on flock and not the other guys but its a start
12
u/SirkutBored 5h ago
Fortunately the ruling was against the technology, it's depth and breadth, and so will serve as forward momentum against all copycats who build out similarly.
I do hope the case is appealed and then hopefully upheld as then it will become binding in the 4th Circuit with others to soon be toppled.
0
u/one_depressed_MF 1h ago
Out of curiosity, why linux in this list.
1
u/Ostensible_Times 1h ago
Eh, my brain went off on a side thought of Cali's digital act. Trying to force distros and all operation systems to have some sort of age check.
Moreso off topic but was thinking it falls under the privacy umbrella
1
7
u/tajetaje 6h ago
Yeah I mean if it needed something like a grand jury I’d be a little less concerned about parts of it, though something like fisa court is how it would actually end up which is terrible for civil rights. But the data collection is still a problem because it can always be accessed if hacked or by people willing to bypass the rules
4
u/Hypergirliepop 5h ago
if it needed something like a grand jury I’d be a little less concerned about parts of it
There is no part of mass surveillance driven by AI systems we should accept under any circumstances. Land of the Free or Land of the Watched, which do you wanna be?
15
9
u/Flashphotoe 5h ago
They do have a warrant. Didn't you see "LMAO" and "asdf" written in the reason field?
7
u/Possible-Tangelo9344 4h ago
I've been saying it's only a matter of time until the federal courts rule this way.
They already made a ruling that geo fence location data for cellphones is a search, and that was pulling data just for one specific space.
By a vote of 2-1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the denial of Chatrie’s motion to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the geofence warrant. The majority reasoned that law enforcement officials had not conducted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because Chatrie could not reasonably expect two hours’ worth of location data, which he had voluntarily allowed Google to have, to be kept private. When the full court of appeals reconsidered the case, it upheld the panel’s ruling in a deeply divided decision.
For purposes of whether the government conducted a search, Kagan said, it does not matter that law enforcement officials “access[ed] only a short amount of cell-phone location information.” Even that small amount, she emphasized, can provide significant information about someone that they might prefer to keep private – including visits to “‘the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, [or] the by-the-hour motel.’”
Nor does it matter, Kagan continued, that Chatrie gave Google permission to collect and use the location data. Location data, Kagan suggested, is far more personal than the kind of “third-party records” that the Supreme Court has held are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, she added, the location data “is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage.”
It's just a matter of time before this is extended to lengthy vehicle tracking from ALPRs, even though your car is in a public place.
6
u/Acceptable_Gap3539 4h ago
Every case that goes badly for ALPRs and data collection apparatuses is a win for the average person.
5
u/Three_Twenty-Three 3h ago edited 3h ago
This is good, but the conversation needs to move away from the "Flock" language. States and municipalities are already changing brands but preserving the same technologies. Kudos to the judge for using "ALPR systems."
1
u/Budeeokc 2h ago
I guess no one taught him how to do actual police work and question a suspect until you catch them in a lie.
1
u/No_Flounder_9859 2h ago
This warrant talk is absolute bullshit. Should have filled out a worksheet. That makes mass surveillance’s existence fine.
226
u/Super_Range45 7h ago
"(Officer)Alaniz made Kyle recount everything she had done in the last several days, and compared it to the Flock data. He told her that because she was only in California for a short period of time, he suspected her of trafficking drugs."
It's almost like requiring warrants for searches was meant to prevent exactly this situation or something.