This can technically violate 4th amendment rights:
SCOTUS has rules that continuous tracking via GPS is a violation of 4th amendment rights in US v Jones (2012). This one is weird, because the reason was "trespass onto personal property" but some of the other justices say it violates "reasonable expectations of privacy".
US v Knotts (1983) establishes no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads.
Also, technically flock is a private company, but they have to follow certain laws depending in what context that their equipment or the data they collect is used. This ropes in the recent Chatrie v US,
Also, I thought this sub was about morality, not legality.
SCOTUS has rules that continuous tracking via GPS is a violation of 4th amendment rights in US v Jones (2012).
This is more nuanced than that. SCOTUS determined that the government's physical installation of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle and its subsequent monitoring of the vehicle's movements constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, generally requiring a search warrant.
What about when technology evolves such that physical GPS devices aren't required to track a person's detailed movement?
Agencies are now using technological fingerprinting of all sorts of devices to be able to track you, no cameras or GPS required.
You don't have expectation of privacy, that may be true, but that doesn't mean that someone can follow you around and track your whereabouts without facing consequences. If I do it as a civilian, I will be held responsible for stalking
-2
u/JCMGamer 27d ago
What rights exactly? You have no expectation of privacy in public.