Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Because the users of the cameras have proven themselves untrustworthy.

That and it’s against the spirit of the bill of rights.

Well, the debate about the Bill of Rights itself was that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize those activities the first place (which is why they were amendments) and that listing any of them would imply that things not explicitly listed were somewhat endorsed.

But I do know the Founders had no clue about computers, networks, cameras or license plates so they certthad no opinions about Flock cameras when they drafted the Bill of Rights. The Founders were all rich white men who were more than happy to dragnet to find unauthorized non-whites so who really knows what was in the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

If you remove the technology that they wouldn’t understand, the founders wouldn’t consider Flock to be some absurd concept: a sheriff asking a night watchman standing on the road into town “did you see George go by riding Samuel’s horse?”

It’s a reasonable question, it’s a public road, and it doesn’t violate George’s privacy in his person, home, papers, or belongings.

How about "Give me an instant heat map of all of George's movements the past year across all 13 states. With a particular focus on parking up near any and all brothels"

Do you think George parking his horse/car in a public parking lot outside a brothel should confer an expectation of privacy?

Can a bank or ATM miles away have a security camera, just on the off-chance that George stops to withdraw cash for said brothel?

Can police not stake out the brothel to gather evidence of prostitution because all the patrons have an expectation of privacy?

IE, is it ever acceptable to be noticed in public just because you may be doing something unsavory?

It's not the individual threads, it's the tapestry made whole.

That's a pretty nebulous answer. Just to help solidify my understanding of your position, can the government ever operate a camera recording a public roadway?

Not if its purpose is to surveil or monitor innocent people, that is the whole reason flock exists, to get around that restriction as a private entity. The government only has public cameras now because it is for other purposes like monitoring traffic congestion or things like floods.

Every security camera on Earth is there "to surveil or monitor innocent people". That's inherently how they work.

The issue is more that an individual has a right to be secure his/her belongings, is free from warrantless search and seizure, and a right to refrain from self-incrimination. All of these are violated by constant surveillance. Further, no such right was granted to government in the Constitution and is thus prohibited by the 10th amendment.

None of those are implicated by surveillance of public spaces. The 10th amendment also doesn’t restrict the general police powers of state governments. It restricts the powers of the federal government.

Because deploying these cameras is anti-social conduct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com