• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock, a network of AI cameras used by ICE, feds, and police

kirbyrj said:
Oh yes the Constitution. I'm guessing you have a novel interpretation of the Fourth amendment which invalidates Flock cameras along with some random YouTube video by some non-constitutional scholar "proving" your point.
Click to expand...
Hmm yes, it YouTube video therefore it's invalid argument. To put it simply, it breaks 4th amendment rights because it's a warrantless search. BUT!!!, because Flock is a private company then that doesn't apply to Flock. Except Flock is being used by the government so it should apply to Flock. If you can track my movement and issue tickets based on AI footage then that's circumventing the 4th amendment. Of course you can interpret this how you want, but it just seems like warrantless search without a warrant. If you can issue fines and arrests using Flock then it's a warrantless search.

Here's another YouTube video so it's obviously just some group of nobodies that nobody should listen too. Stupid ass NBC news.

View: https://youtu.be/1DUCg50fKQ8?si=FOcgrCB8TCPMFInY
 
DukenukemX said:
To put it simply, it breaks 4th amendment rights because it's a warrantless search. BUT!!!, because Flock is a private company then that doesn't apply to Flock. Except Flock is being used by the government so it should apply to Flock. If you can track my movement and issue tickets based on AI footage then that's circumventing the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...
that seem a bit simplistic, supreme court precendant wise at least.

Millions of warrantless search are made in the US airports every year, there is some test used a big one is person subjective expectation of privacy, the exterior of your car on public road... expectation of privacy is extremelly low, that why usage of camera looking at cars as been legal, police radar use and a long list.

How does the flok camera looking at your car speed any different than a police doing it with a radar (without asking for a warrant before doing so) ? And how is it a search ?

Court precendant that you no expectation of privacy about your car license plate is well establish and obvious (the law force it to be visible and being read without warrant/permission is the only reason they exist) same for the exterior of your cars movement on public road, tourist can film you, traffic cam can film, trucker can have dash cam filming you.

The non visible from the window interior of your car that a different story.

I really doubt a private company can search a citizen private property without permission anything a governement cannot because of the 4th... Company can search company cars, computers, desk, used by an employee too, but that would be true for state employees has well.

DukenukemX said:
Stupid ass NBC news
Click to expand...
The video you posted you did not watched, the video say that according to courts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a federal judge rules in favor of them (not infriging the 4th) and that law professor feel the appeal will fail they are not a violation of the 4th they need a different angle, I feel you go with title and do not read article or watch video you post very much ?

cellphone data, gps tracker that a stronger case than the exterior appearance of your car and license plate on public road.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
Millions of warrantless search are made in the US airports every year, there is some test used a big one is person subjective expectation of privacy, the exterior of your car on public road... expectation of privacy is extremelly low, that why usage of camera looking at cars as been legal, police radar use and a long list.
Click to expand...
Warrantless searches of any kind breaks the constitution, and because it's been done at airports for a while doesn't make it right. It seems the logic here is that if we're doing something wrong for years, then the new wrong must be right?
How does the flok camera looking at your car speed any different than a police doing it with a radar (without asking for a warrant before doing so) ? And how is it a search ?
Click to expand...
The police officer was present and witness to speeding, while a Flock camera uses AI that sometimes thinks glue can be used to hold cheese down in pizza. Not to forget, it's holding a data base of footage which can be used against you.
I really doubt a private company can search a citizen private property without permission anything a governement cannot because of the 4th... Company can search company cars, computers, desk, used by an employee too, but that would be true for state employees has well.
Click to expand...
Except the people are not employees to Flock.
The video you posted you did not watched, the video say that according to courts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a federal judge rules in favor of them (not infriging the 4th) and that law professor feel the appeal will fail they are not a violation of the 4th they need a different angle, I feel you go with title and do not read article or watch video you post very much ?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that court case is being appealed. I'm not even sure what you're saying because on one hand you said you did not watch the video, but then began to cite things from said video? What law professor thinks the appeal will fail? Chester Fernadez? He didn't say anything like that.
 
DukenukemX said:
Warrantless searches of any kind breaks the constitution,
Click to expand...
of course not, the text is extremelly clear:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I.e. if you look like very much like you have a gun, during your arrestation a police can search and seize it, without needing a warrant and waiting for it, because it is judge reasonable, same for the airports search a long list of reasonable case for a search or seizure without warrant exist as the constitution clearly permit it.

DukenukemX said:
The police officer was present and witness to speeding, while a Flock camera uses AI that sometimes thinks glue can be used to hold cheese down in pizza. Not to forget, it's holding a data base of footage which can be used against you.
Click to expand...
It is quite legal for them to radar any car going throught, it can be automated and always on like a dash cam in their cars, it can be a bit funny being a passenger in a cop car and looking at it going on, lot of people break on sight.
https://stalkerradar.com/police-radar/dsr/
The Stalker DSR police radar can detect and accurately track vehicles from over a mile away. The DSR’s exceptional range on the highway lets you know what’s up ahead long before anyone even knows you’re around.

Photo radar have been going on for a long time, they look at every car.

DukenukemX said:
Except the people are not employees to Flock.
Click to expand...
sure and flock cannot more than the goverment search or seize peopel private property when any subjective expectation of privacy exist and without permissions.

DukenukemX said:
Keep in mind that court case is being appealed. I'm not even sure what you're saying because on one hand you said you did not watch the video, but then began to cite things from said video? What law professor thinks the appeal will fail? Chester Fernadez? He didn't say anything like that.
Click to expand...
Yes I cite the video that clearly claim that judge and professor laws say that flock camera does not break the 4th amendtements and I claim that you did not watch it because I understood you claim ABC news implied that flock camera was breaking the 4th amendtment. Who did not say anything like that ? the abc "journalist" speaking say the law professor said that there is strong precedant of no subjective expectation of privacy for your license plate or what your car do on public road.

This seem something you need a law to ban (and that easy to do) instead of relying on the constitution.
 
LukeTbk said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Click to expand...
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
 
At what point is it too far then? should your every action be monitored incase you make any legal infraction no matter how small and be sent a fine? Eventually it will be argued that cameras can watch into your windows. Since they aren't actually doing anything inside your house, just capturing photons outside of your house. Just to make sure you aren't breaking laws from inside as well.
 
LukeTbk said:
I.e. if you look like very much like you have a gun, during your arrestation a police can search and seize it, without needing a warrant and waiting for it, because it is judge reasonable, same for the airports search a long list of reasonable case for a search or seizure without warrant exist as the constitution clearly permit it.
Click to expand...
And people wonder why there's a growing tend to defund the police. By defund I mean fund less.
Yes I cite the video that clearly claim that judge and professor laws say that flock camera does not break the 4th amendtements
Click to expand...
If there's an appeal then the judge's verdict is not final.
and I claim that you did not watch it because I understood you claim ABC news
Click to expand...
NBC news...
Who did not say anything like that ? the abc "journalist"
Click to expand...
NBC news...
This seem something you need a law to ban (and that easy to do) instead of relying on the constitution.
Click to expand...
We just need to enforce the constitution, because this clearly goes beyond Flock. Making individual laws means there's going to be loop holes that will be used.
 
M76 said:
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
I'm sure the people in swimsuits have nothing to fear. I wonder why nobody is swimming?
 
M76 said:
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
yes that a much better angle than the getting a ticket for speeding on a public road being inconsitutional if a photo radar used an AI instead of an human to read the plate number(which as a long track and tested record) or the idea a cop need a warrant to read a car license plate number or probable cause/warrant to radar an vehicle speed on a public road.

Using a national network to track individual movement is different than simply filming car, analysing their speed and sending ticket reading their plate if they went over the limit, different than reading all plates and rising and issue startign to track those with open warrants/stolen car has well.

Making the tool exist can be seen as dangerous and almost certain to eventually break the constitution, so going ahead before it happen and making a laws to make them illegal is not a bad idea, but people will love lower car insurance and crime down since 2023 figures... which are really impressive and can be an hard sales.
 
LukeTbk said:
yes that a much better angle than the getting a ticket for speeding on a public road being inconsitutional if a photo radar used an AI instead of an human to read the plate number(which as a long track and tested record) or the idea a cop need a warrant to read a car license plate number or probable cause/warrant to radar an vehicle speed on a public road.
Click to expand...
Actual automated license plate readers have existed long before AI cameras, they are not the same thing, no matter how desperately flcok axon palantir and their shills try to convince you it's just an ALPR camera. It's not. an ALPR is just a camera with OCR, nothing more. Their AI camera is connected to the servers of a private company that is indiscriminately cataloging everything it sees, which later can be accessed and searched by anyone they chose to give access to without a warrant. I think it is illegal surveillance even if it is not used, warrant or no warrant. The warrant should exist before you start surveiling the person, getting one after the fact should not make the previous recordings legal or admissible. That's what I think.
LukeTbk said:
Using a national network to track individual movement is different than simply filming car, analysing their speed and sending ticket reading their plate if they went over the limit, different than reading all plates and rising and issue startign to track those with open warrants/stolen car has well.
Click to expand...
AI Cameras already do all of that. Just because it hasn't been used against you yet doesn't mean your movements aren't recorded and saved even if you have no warrant.
LukeTbk said:
Making the tool exist can be seen as dangerous and almost certain to eventually break the constitution, so going ahead before it happen and making a laws to make them illegal is not a bad idea, but people will love lower car insurance and crime down since 2023 figures... which are really impressive and can be an hard sales.
Click to expand...
The tools existence already breaks the constitution. There is zero evidence that AI cameras lower insurance costs or crime. If anything they will be used to increase your insurance, if you frequent bad neighborhoods, if it isn't already. Like GM selling throttle position sensor and brake force data to insurance companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top