Hacker News Reader

I suspect the argument against that would be that you contract with the cell service provider and so have a colorable interest as a party to said contract. In contrast you have no such contractual relationship with Flock, and if your government contracted with them on your behalf your remedy is to vote harder.

View on HN

According to the ruling, the exposure of your location history is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage—which, just as Carpenter noted, is a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."

If we can't step out of our houses or drive to the doctor without that fact getting placed into a searchable database, then I'd argue that it qualifies as a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."

You are missing the point. It's not that Flock cameras are not intrusive (they are, I fully agree) but that your contract with the cell service company gives you some legal standing to claim you were injured. If your municipality erects flock cameras and you don't like them, you don't have standing in the same way because a) you are not a customer of flock with contractual rights that can be enforced, and b) elected officials are legally authroized to do things because they won political office via election. So unless you discover they were bribed by Flock or engaged in some other corrupt activity, you don't have the legal standing to complain about a policy outcome you dislike.

This guy works for flock

Reply on news.ycombinator.com