> But by virtue of how ALPR technology works, Alaniz and other officers using these systems have access to a continuously updated location history for all vehicles caught on ALPR cameras within the network. This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as
in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass
by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.
For those saying that the headline is incorrect, I disagree. I believe that the judge's ruling was specifically that Flock's mass surveillance network is, in itself, a violation of the fourth amendment.
The dragnet nature of the data collection was given as the basis for why the officer's use of the data required a warrant or probable cause, but was not given as the thing in violation itself. The document clearly says that the problem was that the police officer searched the data without a warrant or probable cause, not that the data was collected without a warrant or probable cause.
Here's from the very final conclusion:
> "Alaniz conducted that search ... because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights."
And here's from earlier in the document:
> "In the Court’s view, Alaniz did not have enough information to reasonably
believe that Kyle was engaged in unlawful conduct"
The court wouldn't be talking that way if the problem were the data collection and not the circumstance of the stop.
> post title: Federal judge rules Flock violated the fourth amendment
Please fix this wrong title. The judge ruled that searching the data without a warrant or probable cause violated the fourth amendment. It's wrong to say that the problem was the cameras and not the warrantless use of the data.
Literally in the tweet: "police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching [ALPR data] without a warrant"
This title is 100% false. It is not possible for a private company to "violate the 4th amendment". The Bill of Rights constrains the government, not private parties.
Flock is often contracted to install and operate its camera network on behalf of local governments and police. The specific act that violated the 4th Amendment in this case was the government searching the collected data, but it is within the realm of possibility that Flock’s existing business model will be considered an unconstitutional dragnet.
Yes, but the person I replied to made a different claim: that the title was wrong because private parties categorically cannot violate the Bill of Rights, which is untrue.
> But by virtue of how ALPR technology works, Alaniz and other officers using these systems have access to a continuously updated location history for all vehicles caught on ALPR cameras within the network. This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.
For those saying that the headline is incorrect, I disagree. I believe that the judge's ruling was specifically that Flock's mass surveillance network is, in itself, a violation of the fourth amendment.
The dragnet nature of the data collection was given as the basis for why the officer's use of the data required a warrant or probable cause, but was not given as the thing in violation itself. The document clearly says that the problem was that the police officer searched the data without a warrant or probable cause, not that the data was collected without a warrant or probable cause.
Here's from the very final conclusion:
> "Alaniz conducted that search ... because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights."
And here's from earlier in the document:
> "In the Court’s view, Alaniz did not have enough information to reasonably believe that Kyle was engaged in unlawful conduct"
The court wouldn't be talking that way if the problem were the data collection and not the circumstance of the stop.
> post title: Federal judge rules Flock violated the fourth amendment
Please fix this wrong title. The judge ruled that searching the data without a warrant or probable cause violated the fourth amendment. It's wrong to say that the problem was the cameras and not the warrantless use of the data.
Literally in the tweet: "police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching [ALPR data] without a warrant"
[dead]
This title is 100% false. It is not possible for a private company to "violate the 4th amendment". The Bill of Rights constrains the government, not private parties.
The Bill of Rights does constrain private parties when acting on behalf of, in place of, or in tandem with the government.
Marsh v. Alabama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._Wilmington_Parking_A...
Flock is often contracted to install and operate its camera network on behalf of local governments and police. The specific act that violated the 4th Amendment in this case was the government searching the collected data, but it is within the realm of possibility that Flock’s existing business model will be considered an unconstitutional dragnet.
> it is within the realm of possibility that Flock’s existing business model will be considered an unconstitutional dragnet.
I agree it is in the realm of possibility. It's just not the thing that has happened here.
Yes, but the person I replied to made a different claim: that the title was wrong because private parties categorically cannot violate the Bill of Rights, which is untrue.