Re: Are Flock cameras next? Supreme Court rules against police using sprawling cell phone location data

On 2026-07-07, Flocked Up <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> From there, police are able to expand the warrant and look
> deeper into specific accounts and addresses to get identity
> information. 
>
> The Supreme Court is making it harder or even impossible to get
> them.  The justices ruled that these warrants could constitute
> an unreasonable search and seizure, because oftentimes
> citizens' data is scooped up and investigated even if they have
> no connection to the crime. 
>
> "I don't believe my cell number being found in a particular
> location is particularly troublesome to me if I haven't
> committed any crimes," McDonald said. 
>
> But just because someone else committed a crime, it doesn't
> mean that there is no longer a right to privacy, Benza said. 

Enough with this "right to privacy."

A qualitative distinction should be made between a search that
/limits physical freedom/ and a search that does not. We are
approaching an age where there will be /no/ privacy. Everyone
will know everything about everyone.

The "right to privacy" does not exist. What people fear is not so
much an /invasion of privacy/ but the /misuse/ of information
obtained thereby, whether by a sloping-foreheaded middle school
blonde idiot who wants to laugh at what brand of adult diapers
you wear, or in a wrongful arrest and detainment. Or, perhaps,
they have genuine /malice/ to hide, and they abuse their
"privacy" so as to conceal their misdeeds.

Not only is there no "right to privacy," knowledge should be in
both directions. We can't just let some crew from the military
sneak behind us without our knowing. Those who monitor should in
turn be monitored; no one is exempt from the rule of information
obtainment.

-- Scott Hoge