this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
1218 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87550 readers
3159 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That really needs to change also. That made sense back when it was just recording something in public that a random officer could have seen, but it’s no longer the same thing. No police force could have such large scale comprehensive surveillance and recording based on what an officer could have seen in public .
The fact that you could even have an officer overstep his authority to stalk someone one nationwide for personal reasons, is not just a failure of privacy safeguards, but proof that large scale surveillance is not the same as “what any random officer could have seen”
There needs to be a threshold, beyond which a warrant is required
You are correct in theory. In reality, its messy.
The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.
Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.
The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where "the cops look this way too much" has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it'd be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.
My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that's what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.
Clearly the private ownership is part of this dystopia. Even if we were to place limits or safeguards on this surveillance, it probably won’t apply to purchasing private databases