Anonymous OP 12w

Thats not what they ruled tho. They ruled that police departments and other agencies can’t just ask for a broad list of every phone in a certain area

1

Anonymous #1 12w

It does not stop them from obtaining a warrant to check your specific phone and its locations. The reason the geofencing is unconstitutional is because it gives a list of everyone in the area, not just a suspect.

1

Anonymous #1 12w

The majority opinion was that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy with your location data, all it takes is to make the argument in court that the databases companies like Flock are building are tantamount to location data as you can search an individuals with a simple prompt

1

Anonymous #1 12w

At least that’s what I have gathered from reading. Would love to see Flock cameras ruled as unconstitutional but that’s not what this case was

1

Anonymous OP 12w

An individuals movement*

1

Anonymous OP 12w

I think there’s absolutely a case to be made for that but that’s not what this ruling will do. Also nobody has a reasonable expectation to privacy when in public

1

Anonymous #2 12w

I’ll do a better job explaining for you and #1. The court ruled that there is a reasonable expectation to privacy for location data. Flock cameras (and any other type of privatized surveillance device) can be configured to scan for said location data and send it to databases in a very similar manner to that of Google or Apple. In my eyes that makes the location data trawlers equipped on many ALPR cameras

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Unconstitutional as well since they violate the expectation to privacy for location data set by the court

1