It’s a patriotic act defending the 4th amendment to destroy those cameras… it’s in the freaking constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not sure public video recording amounts to a search and seizure. Is there case precedent establishing specifically that?
It applies to the government too, just like how companies can fire you and discriminate against you for speech, but the government can’t (except if you say “I am going to kill the president of the United States” or if you say “you should kill the president of the United States.” Both of which are illegal. Very illegal. Super duper illegal you should never say them.)
However it gets muddy when you’re hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?
That didn’t address my point.
Is public video recording considered a 4th amendment violation?
Because that’s what the Flock cameras do.
The rest of what makes Flock… is processing after the fact. And that analysis is effectively the same as what any social media or advertising company does when they build a profile on you. Actually basically any tech company nowadays is making a profile for you and attaching it to whatever data they can get their hands on, and usually selling access to their data on you as well. And those are clearly considered legal. Whether they should be is a different topic.
Are you arguing that this is fine, or acceptable?
“Proved them wrong” implies they made a mistake. “Showed they were lying” would be more accurate.
