KingGimpicus

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.

Then how do plain view doctrine and warrantless searches work then?

Cool, so anyone who can afford a self driving car is immune to tickets and traffic citations. Very bourgeois.

Ticketing a car is a good practice to avoid police interaction, which is the real danger in this country. The burden of proof still applies in court, so even if you did get a "phantom" ticket, they still have to prove you were in control of the vehicle at the time. I recently got a red light camera ticket on a rental thrown out because I showed i turned in the vehicle 4 hours before the time of the infraction. Goddamn Hertz tried to throw me under the bus. Always keep your receipts.

There are plenty of privacy laws, but the catch is that you have to make an effort to create privacy. Putting your blinds down creates privacy. Building a roof over your pool and walls around your yard create privacy. There is just no expectation of privacy in public, and technically anything that can be seen from public is "in plain view". Protecting your privacy is not a function of the state unless you had an expectation of privacy through explicit disclaimer or honest effort.

They dont need a warrant for a plate that is visible from public. If your car was locked up in a garage, that would be a different story. Taking your car out in public is the same as taking your face out in public legally speaking.

Bro wym there's all kinds of great history content on yt. Drachinifel, cone of arc, ocean liner designs, Nick Zentner (if you like the geologic history of the PNW), the list goes on.

Yes, suggesting that its wrong to take a students property instead of teaching them to use it is the same thing as saying all children shouldn't have to go to school. Im glad you could use your masters degree to gymast yourself into that position. Actually, you'll have singlehandedly solved school shootings. Can't get shot in class if you arent in class.

Nobody pays me except the school, same as you. The same school paid by the state for each student you have.

The difference is my students choose to be here. I dont have slave catchers to go out and drag them in when they decide to do other things. If I drop the ball in my classes, they can drop the class and go do other things. Can yours? Gun to your head, can you say for certain your kids would choose you over going to the beach or seeing a movie? Hell, attendance is only 40% of the grade for 24 classes. Most of mine could skip two weeks and not even blink. I point this out to them every semester, tell them I get paid either way. The only person who loses is them. How many no shows do you think I have?

Last semester I averaged less than 1 per week.

I actually do substitute at my local community College. We have a saying here in the welding shop. If you cant do the job, teach. I tell my students that learning a skill is valuable even if they cant use it. Just like the phone in their pocket, its useful beyond the direct application. At worst, they can pass on the skills and experience to someone who can use them. I figure giving back is the very least I can do to keep the world spinning. And the very least is teaching, funnily enough.

Cool. So instead of teaching kids the difference between productive screen time and doom scrolling, you embrace abstinence because you did it once and you were fine.

Humanity has been tailor making distractions for millenia. We've been hunting the dopamine high since we started banging rocks together. We've also been developing self control. Did you forget about that one? Maybe you needed a lockout program for your phone because you were too weak to focus for your own sake?

Again, I dont understand how you can say you love your kids and then set them up for failure in the same breath. You're like the morons in the 90's who told us we'd never have a calculator in the real world just to be forced to teach us to run a TI-84 a handful of years later. Abstinence may have worked for you, but its going to do more harm that good on a larger scale. Thats just history repeating itself. Must have skipped that day back in college.

Better, they're going to go home and jump right back on the dopamine train because a) you kept it from them all day and b) you arent taking the time to teach them appropriate attention management techniques. And then you get to start the same fight the next day. How productive. How worthwhile for the kids. Might as well quit the second and third jobs with the amount of gratitude you'll have rolling in.

Not a problem. I'll sign up as soon as you answer the question. When is abstinence better than education?

My only point was that schools cant be trusted to hear kids who need to be heard, therefore cell phones are necessary in case of an emergency. Your argument was that "streaming makes kids do dumb things" like we didnt have Jackass wannabes growing up as well. How dare children not be obedient when told to sit down and shut up? A flashlight when its dark?! The audacity.

Im sorry you clearly hate working with kids. Its so disappointing to see someone invest the time it takes to earn a masters degree only to hate the field they find themselves in. The fact is that children have always acted like children, regardless of the tech they happen to have. They want attention. They want recognition. They want to be seen. You clearly arent engaging them if they're on tiktok or streaming their class to their friends. Again, why do you think taking away the phone is better than teaching them to use it? When is abstinence better than education?