anotherbarpod
Region: US
Saturday 03 October 2026 15:04:02 GMT
147
5
2
0
Music
Download
Comments
Jason Henley :
Stop it now!
2026-10-03 18:08:57
1
calwhiting :
SCOTUS has been building a privacy wall against mass surveillance for decades: U.S. v. Kyle (2026) — Federal court: warrantless Flock/ALPR searching can be a Fourth Amendment search. The judge called it “indiscriminate mass surveillance” and tied it directly to Knotts’ warning about “dragnet-type” surveillance. Evidence suppressed. District-court ruling, not nationwide precedent. Chatrie v. U.S. (2026) — SCOTUS: police accessing Google Location History is a search. You can’t dodge the Fourth Amendment by pulling only a tiny slice from a massive location database. Carpenter v. U.S. (2018) — Long-term digital location history can reveal the whole of a person’s movements. Warrant required. Riley v. California (2014) — Your phone isn’t just another pocket or container. Police generally need a warrant to search its digital contents. U.S. v. Jones (2012) — Long-term GPS tracking of a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search. Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) — Technology doesn’t get a free pass around the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Karo (1984) — Electronic tracking that reveals information from inside a home crosses the constitutional line. U.S. v. Knotts (1983) — SCOTUS allowed one primitive beeper-tracking trip — but specifically warned about future “dragnet-type law enforcement practices.” And now we have Flock. One cop seeing your plate on one road is one thing. A permanent searchable network capable of reconstructing weeks or months of travel, recurring locations, associations, vehicles and patterns is something entirely different. Knotts warned us about the dragnet in 1983. In 2026, a federal court looked at modern ALPR surveillance and essentially said: Yep. This is the problem they were warning about.
2026-10-04 02:21:05
0
To see more videos from user @anotherbarpod, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
