Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world
news·NewsbyMicroWave

Federal judge rules a flock search was ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’ and unconstitutional

Flock’s nationwide network is quickly “approaching dragnet-type law enforcement practice” and the cop should have got a warrant, the judge wrote.

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Thursday that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a woman accused of meth trafficking when he searched her license plate in Flock’s automated license plate reader system simply because her license plate was from California, then used her travel history as part of the reason to search her car.

The judge’s opinion is one of the first times a federal judge has decided Flock searches can be unconstitutional, and suggested that Flock’s network is “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance.”

Federal judge rules a flock search was ‘indiscriminate mass surveillance’ and unconstitutionalhttps://www.404media.co/federal-judge-rules-a-flock-search-was-indiscriminate-mass-surveillance-and-unconstitutional/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
263
Comments6

6 replies

gh0stb4tz
lemmy.world

Can this be used as leverage for a class action lawsuit to get these cameras removed?

32
Ricky Rigatonireply
piefed.zip

Even if it isn't, this ruling makes flock effectively useless for its intended purpose so they'll possibly just stop using them.

14
Manjushrireply
piefed.social

Not really.

“Alaniz then pulled his vehicle on the highway to follow the Mazda for no apparent reason other than the fact that it had a California license plate. Alaniz also ran a query on the Flock system for the California license plate number on the Mazda SUV,” Hill wrote. Alaniz then ostensibly pulled Kyle over for changing lanes without a turn signal.

...

“The Court finds that because the ALPR systems Alaniz used to search Kyle’s historical location information intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of her physical movements, it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Based on the information in the record, the only reason Alaniz conducted that search was because he saw her license plate was from California.”

All this ruling means is that they'll need to come up with a minor traffic violation to pull you over for first, and do the database search second once they have "probable cause." The ruling doesn't say they can't use Flock, just that they can't use it without some sort of offense being investigated. If this cop had waited until she did a lane change without signaling before doing a Flock search, then it seems like this judge would be okay with it.

7
FuglyDuck
lemmy.world

Was it the cameras that are unconstitutional, or the search derived from floc’s data/ai-shit?

3

You reached the end