I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes.
There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.
I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee.
If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted for months, there clearly wasn't immenent danger.
People have a right to be secure in their houses under the 4th amendment. People have a reasonable expectation that others will not install cameras on property they do not own for the purpose of surveiling a house the other does not own. Secretly installing a camera seems like a violation of that reasonable expectation, thus making it a search.
Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?
There's a difference between 'no privacy from the street' and 'filming everything all the time'. Like the difference between picking an orange from a neighbor's tree, and bringing in a combine harvester.
Pedants will insist they are the 'same' somehow. But socially we know that's not true. It matters to us that we feel some sense of privacy most of the time. It's all about degree.
But most people staking out your home are somewhat obvious. A car parked across the street would be noticed, as would most permanent cameras. Getting permission to put something on a utility pole that is so small as to not be noticed is different, and whether or not that makes it illegal is exactly the question at hand.
Think about it as if it was a person -- while it might be legal for me to stand on the sidewalk and look at your home, I sure would get a different reaction if I stood there for days with binoculars looking through your windows 24/7.
So yes, viewing a home from a public space is legal, the question is not only what criteria would make it illegal, but what criteria should?
Lots of things are illegal when the government does it, but not when regular people do it. That's like, a major part of the constitution. Here's what's relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
> Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.
> there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view
There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole.
Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.
If a third party is paid by the police to film you then they are an arm of the
government too.
Otherwise yes some cameras are already there and may be pointing at your home, but that doesn’t mean it is OK for the police to stick a poll cam up and spy on you.
A police poll cam could pan and zoom as needed to get the questionable probable cause. So it is way more dangerous than a ring bell next door (ring bells don’t pick up much really)
While someone could privately conduct the surveillance and sell it to the police... they then become agents of the police, given that the police are the only reasonable market for such recordings. (The other possible market is hoping that stalkers want to buy it for select locations... after the first incident, legislation would quickly shut it down.)
Others in the past have noted that the police would be permitted to stake out the address in person, without warrant or much oversight. But the number of cops is finite, there are natural limits to how often and how long they can do that. There is no limit to how many cameras that police departments might collectively buy. There are plausible scenarios where multiple cameras are aimed at every address in the country. All of this can be stored indefinitely.
The difference is the police have extraordinary rights to search and seize your property with established probable cause, and the ability to violently detain, even kill you, if they observe anything that might give suspicion of a crime. Your neighbor can’t use footage they acquire for any purpose without your permission of you in your private life without running afoul privacy laws. But the crucial aspect is the extraordinary powers and rights the police are conferred to basically destroy your life on suspicion alone.
They did specify at a high level several cases and that at least in some charges were filed in the article, at least I read it that way:
“a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar — a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids — to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.”
> I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view
This is not a natural occurrence, not a law of physics like gravity. It’s the result of large corporations normalizing surveillance. Recall that some Germans rebelled against Google Street View, and the government made them stop putting photos people’s homes on the web. But the cold logic and power of surveillance capitalism prevailed, and even the nominally “privacy protecting” corporation Apple now does the same.
“That’s how it goes” implies it can’t be stopped. It can. Through laws. This branch of government just decided they’re not the ones to do it.
I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices.
The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing the spying, as here, seems almost old hat. But what absurd data they can get, given the high heights of technology we have flown to.
Hmmm, how feasible do you reckon it would be to start using the same "buy data from third parties" on these senators and Supreme Court judges?
And probably do the same for the (registered) lobbyists and political donors, then look for after hours instances where the data shows their location being very close / overlapping.
Or something along those lines anyway. Would probably take a bunch more thinking about + some test investigation. ;)
SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.
They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with.
And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed.
SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side.
Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example:
- The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity
- They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc.
- They might not have time, or there might be more important issues
... and so on.
I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.
> SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.
I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.
"They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with."
There's also a possibility that they don't disagree with this. My understanding is the current test is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, a neighbor could film your house from across the street, so there is no expectation of privacy since anyone can do what the ATF did here.
So they would only take this case if they are interested in changing the standard test. Maybe they will in a future case, or maybe they are fine with the current test.
Surely declining to hear the appeal IS agreeing with the ruling, at least de-facto? Doing so because they are busy or don't want to interfere etc doesn't change that. At best they have retained the option to hear an identical case later, but SCOTUS always has that right anyway...
As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization.
The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.
The American government, including the political, bureaucratic and the judicial sectors, seems quite eager to implement the Chinese system of mass surveillance and control of the population, and would do so immediately if given the chance.
Incidentally, this warrantless camera surveillance of specific targets is fairly similar to the current practice of private companies engaging in surveillance of all kinds of online communities, then selling their collected data to the FBI, which thus avoids the need to go before a judge to get a warrant.
Nasty ACLU using a dark pattern: the page comes up overlaid with a donation panel. The panel can be dismissed, but only by clicking a [X] button that is well outside the panel. You have to look for it.
I'm curious if there is a way to detect these. For local access (in case cellular fails or isn't needed), maybe they have a Bluetooth radio listening or a wifi AP.
SCOTUS has been ducking these cases for almost 2 decades now. The concept of a meaningful warrant being required is basically dead at this point in the USA.
Honestly the only difference between how things are done traditionally and this is that the cop watching the footage isn't in a car outside with a video camera. Fundamentally functionally the scenarios are no different, one is just less cumbersome to do.
Now, I do think that even manual surveillance should require a warrant, as well as purchasing private evidence such as doorbell camera footage, but I'm unlikely to see a ruling in my favor on that any time soon.
The idea is that the length and amount of surveillance is invasive.
You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week.
But if your neighbors take turns sitting on their porch, watching every move you make - if you can never come and go without them watching - and they’re taking notes and pictures of every visitor, every package, etc. - that would feel invasive for many people.
That’s the argument. Do you have a expectation of privacy in public? No. Do you have an expectation of constant surveillance? Also no.
A while back, there was a leak of some sort whereby many of these pole cameras in Massachusetts became accessible to the public. While this is anecdotal, it seemed to me at the time that the cameras were more than capable of peering through windows, as though someone were standing on the sidewalk with binoculars. The cameras themselves were concealed so they looked like utility equipment.
I think there is a significant disconnect between a simple, consistent "theoretical" view on camera privacy and actual human sensibilities: I am very confident that humans in general are absolutely not comfortable with being the target of video recording; this became very evident with the whole google glass fiasco, when people wearing those were sometimes straight up banned from restaurants for making people uncomfortable- while surveillance cameras are less "targeted", less visible and at least provide marginal utility, it seems very clear to me that most humans consider it not appropriate to "video record" in every place that you could be "watched" by a bystander (and even just looking at people can drift into offensiveness- consider younger attractive persons veing creepily stared at).
I personally believe that cameras in public places should not be blanket banned, but that individuals should have a viable avenue to get them removed if they care to expend some (legal?) effort.
A utility pole is not public property, it's government property. A member of the public is not legally allowed to just mount whatever equipment they want on the pole.
Please don't post flamebait. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. You're welcome, of course, to make your substantive points thoughtfully.
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.
[+] [-] nulbyte|2 years ago|reply
If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted for months, there clearly wasn't immenent danger.
People have a right to be secure in their houses under the 4th amendment. People have a reasonable expectation that others will not install cameras on property they do not own for the purpose of surveiling a house the other does not own. Secretly installing a camera seems like a violation of that reasonable expectation, thus making it a search.
[+] [-] scott_w|2 years ago|reply
Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|2 years ago|reply
Pedants will insist they are the 'same' somehow. But socially we know that's not true. It matters to us that we feel some sense of privacy most of the time. It's all about degree.
[+] [-] codingdave|2 years ago|reply
Think about it as if it was a person -- while it might be legal for me to stand on the sidewalk and look at your home, I sure would get a different reaction if I stood there for days with binoculars looking through your windows 24/7.
So yes, viewing a home from a public space is legal, the question is not only what criteria would make it illegal, but what criteria should?
[+] [-] hwillis|2 years ago|reply
> Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.
[+] [-] lisper|2 years ago|reply
There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole.
Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.
[+] [-] quickthrower2|2 years ago|reply
Otherwise yes some cameras are already there and may be pointing at your home, but that doesn’t mean it is OK for the police to stick a poll cam up and spy on you.
A police poll cam could pan and zoom as needed to get the questionable probable cause. So it is way more dangerous than a ring bell next door (ring bells don’t pick up much really)
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|2 years ago|reply
Others in the past have noted that the police would be permitted to stake out the address in person, without warrant or much oversight. But the number of cops is finite, there are natural limits to how often and how long they can do that. There is no limit to how many cameras that police departments might collectively buy. There are plausible scenarios where multiple cameras are aimed at every address in the country. All of this can be stored indefinitely.
It amounts to warrantless search.
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|2 years ago|reply
They did specify at a high level several cases and that at least in some charges were filed in the article, at least I read it that way:
“a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar — a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids — to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.”
[+] [-] lo_zamoyski|2 years ago|reply
Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good.
[+] [-] 35997279|2 years ago|reply
This is not a natural occurrence, not a law of physics like gravity. It’s the result of large corporations normalizing surveillance. Recall that some Germans rebelled against Google Street View, and the government made them stop putting photos people’s homes on the web. But the cold logic and power of surveillance capitalism prevailed, and even the nominally “privacy protecting” corporation Apple now does the same.
“That’s how it goes” implies it can’t be stopped. It can. Through laws. This branch of government just decided they’re not the ones to do it.
[+] [-] brightball|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atoav|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rektide|2 years ago|reply
The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing the spying, as here, seems almost old hat. But what absurd data they can get, given the high heights of technology we have flown to.
[+] [-] justinclift|2 years ago|reply
And probably do the same for the (registered) lobbyists and political donors, then look for after hours instances where the data shows their location being very close / overlapping.
Or something along those lines anyway. Would probably take a bunch more thinking about + some test investigation. ;)
[+] [-] rasz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod600|2 years ago|reply
They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with.
And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
[+] [-] blagie|2 years ago|reply
SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side.
Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example:
- The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity
- They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc.
- They might not have time, or there might be more important issues
... and so on.
I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|2 years ago|reply
I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
There's also a possibility that they don't disagree with this. My understanding is the current test is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, a neighbor could film your house from across the street, so there is no expectation of privacy since anyone can do what the ATF did here.
So they would only take this case if they are interested in changing the standard test. Maybe they will in a future case, or maybe they are fine with the current test.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] friend_and_foe|2 years ago|reply
The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.
[+] [-] 93po|2 years ago|reply
1. Know the SC is going to decline anyway
2. Want press coverage and as much visibility on this as possible regardless
ACLU knows what they're doing. They're using the opportunity for (good) PR
[+] [-] photochemsyn|2 years ago|reply
Incidentally, this warrantless camera surveillance of specific targets is fairly similar to the current practice of private companies engaging in surveillance of all kinds of online communities, then selling their collected data to the FBI, which thus avoids the need to go before a judge to get a warrant.
https://www.leefang.com/p/private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alewi481|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denton-scratch|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] batch12|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|2 years ago|reply
Is this different here (legally that is)?
[+] [-] friend_and_foe|2 years ago|reply
Honestly the only difference between how things are done traditionally and this is that the cop watching the footage isn't in a car outside with a video camera. Fundamentally functionally the scenarios are no different, one is just less cumbersome to do.
Now, I do think that even manual surveillance should require a warrant, as well as purchasing private evidence such as doorbell camera footage, but I'm unlikely to see a ruling in my favor on that any time soon.
[+] [-] MagicMoonlight|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzb|2 years ago|reply
You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week.
But if your neighbors take turns sitting on their porch, watching every move you make - if you can never come and go without them watching - and they’re taking notes and pictures of every visitor, every package, etc. - that would feel invasive for many people.
That’s the argument. Do you have a expectation of privacy in public? No. Do you have an expectation of constant surveillance? Also no.
[+] [-] zenexer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myrmidon|2 years ago|reply
I personally believe that cameras in public places should not be blanket banned, but that individuals should have a viable avenue to get them removed if they care to expend some (legal?) effort.
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Simon_O_Rourke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html