maroon barchetta said:
You know better, but I'll answer anyway.
If I step into the Bush Library, I'm in a structure that I have an expectation will have security cameras. Same as any building/business/home.
If I'm driving or biking or walking down a roadway or sidewalk, I don't expect their to be cameras tracking me at random points along the way because there is nothing there to surveil, except me and any other people that pass by.
Terrible analogy on your part to try and tell us why Big Brother is acceptable.
Try harder.
I suspect with modern camera tech in government buildings they do track you through facial recognition (facial recognition cameras are used in
government-owned public housing).
The roads are likewise, owned by the government, and despite their tech, neither system is specifically going after you individually unless they had a reason to look, whether legitimate or not.
You might think this is a "stupid argument" but a good lawyer could put it far more succinctly than I ever could and lure you into a trap.
91_Aggie said:
I just can't imagine being this invested in being on the wrong side of history on this surveillance state issue. Some people just don't learn from history.
Being obsessed with "being on the right side of history" is a talking point mostly associated with the American left. I thought people here claimed to be patriots.
CS78 said:
91_Aggie said:
I just can't imagine being this invested in being on the wrong side of history on this surveillance state issue. Some people just don't learn from history.
No they dont. It doesnt make sense to me either but they're arguing for a mindset, not flock specifically. Safety today at the cost of no telling what tomorrow. Or just simply government knows best. Watch the usernames that have supported flock. Its the same people you see defending government in other threads. Increased taxes, big spending, fancy fire stations, more redlights, more medians, etc. Im sure some of them are directly tied to local government in some way. Either jobs or family with jobs or they work directly with them. I suspect if you were to go back to the covid threads you'd find the same usernames supporting lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc. We just dont think the same about the role of government.
So close, yet so far. You think you're arguing against Flock but you are in fact arguing FOR more all the things you hate.
I have been trying to point out that arguments like "The 4th Amendment never meant..." aren't good tactics because that's the same way arguments like "The 2nd Amendment never meant..." operate as.
The people who actually want higher taxes, more government control, and all those all sorts of things associated with the "authoritarian left" would be delighted with this thread, that you (and others) not only inadvertently argued for justices to decide what the Constitution means but attacked anyone who told you that's what you were doing.
CS78 said:
zigag09 said:
There is no "should". Your argument is entirely based on a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment for public safety. Mass surveillance being a violation of the Fourth Amendment is mainstream legal argument backed by recent Supreme Court precedent, establishing that a "search" occurs whenever the government systematically breaches a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, whether physically or digitally.
There is a profound legal distinction between a localized security camera and a unified, searchable network of 120,000+ cameras nationwide. Courthouses monitor a specific federal property. Flock monitors a person's aggregate movements across space and time. Under the Mosaic Theory established in United States v. Jones and solidified in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that while individual public acts may not be private, like driving your car around College Station, compiling them into a comprehensive, retrospective digital dragnet reveals the "whole of a person's physical movements." This aggregate tracking creates a highly intimate mosaic of a person's life, including their religious, political, and personal associations, which completely pierces the traditional Third-Party Doctrine. (Third-Party Doctrine is the legal rule stating that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily share with third parties, like license plate numbers and vehicle characteristics.)
Your school analogy fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional rights operate. Public schools are an opt-in public benefit system. The Fourth Amendment is a protective right designed to act as an absolute shield against government overreach. In constitutional law, an invasive surveillance infrastructure does not need a 50%, or even a 1% abuse rate to be struck down. If it inherently infringes upon a constitutional boundary without a warrant, it is struck down, even if people consider it to be working perfectly 99.99% of the time.
That boy good!
If you cannot even understand that your "opponent" in this is playing devil's advocate, you'd be eaten alive in a real debate. Your
actual enemies will use the fact that you are blinded by your own rage that you would attack someone who merely tried to point out flaws in your argument, and will have you dancing like puppets in due time. If you can't see that, then there is no hope for you and your ideals.
edit: forget word
Curator of [url=http://csroadsandretail.blogspot.com/]Brazos Buildings & Businesses[/url], the area's premier local history site.
