SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

I don&#x27;t like it, but there&#x27;s nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public&#x2F;street view. Let&#x27;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&#x27;s how it goes.<p>There are very few details in the article. Now I&#x27;m curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.

I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we&#x27;ll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators &amp; Supreme Court justices.<p>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.

SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.<p>They don&#x27;t usually go after every decision they disagree with.<p>And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the <i>Carpenter</i> decision and opinions.

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&#x27;t require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can&#x27;t get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization.<p>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&#x2F;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.<p>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.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leefang.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leefang.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and</a>

It&#x27;s interesting to note that -conversely- German laws on camera surveillance are very strict!

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 <i>that is well outside the panel</i>. You have to look for it.

I&#x27;m curious if there is a way to detect these. For local access (in case cellular fails or isn&#x27;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.

On police documentary shows, it’s frequently stated that anything in public view is not considered private.<p>Is this different here (legally that is)?

Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.

Because of course they won&#x27;t, seems like too much hard work when they&#x27;ve got other civil liberties to overturn and steamroll.