SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-warrantless-pole-camera-surveillance

by loteck • 3 years ago

193 115 3 years ago

aclu.org

rektide• 3 years ago

I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices.

The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing the spying, as here, seems almost old hat. But what absurd data they can get, given the high heights of technology we have flown to.

rasz2• 3 years ago

They dont have to be mounted by cops, do they? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBMkg8G5tQ

mfer• 3 years ago

In most places there are limits to who can put things on poles. For example, where I live it’s the local municipality, utilities, telephone companies, and cable companies. That’s it.

nonethewiser• 3 years ago

They are judges not politicians. Other than that, fair enough

justinclift• 3 years ago

Hmmm, how feasible do you reckon it would be to start using the same "buy data from third parties" on these senators and Supreme Court judges?

And probably do the same for the (registered) lobbyists and political donors, then look for after hours instances where the data shows their location being very close / overlapping.

Or something along those lines anyway. Would probably take a bunch more thinking about + some test investigation. ;)

noisy_boy• 3 years ago

Problem is that activists haven't kept up with the technology. What is the point of shouting with placards when you can invest the donations to setting up legitimate companies that can do data collection on the lawmakers, following the current law, and then just publicize it. See how quickly the law changes (though instead of changes for the general public, it'll probably be in terms of just adding exclusionary clauses for lawmakers e.g. like how insider trading is rampant among them and nobody gets thrown into jail for doing it while I have to sit through yearly preaching organized by my company about what a terrible, horrible, bad thing it is).

Simon_O_Rourke• 3 years ago

Because of course they won't, seems like too much hard work when they've got other civil liberties to overturn and steamroll.

dang• 3 years ago

Please don't post flamebait. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. You're welcome, of course, to make your substantive points thoughtfully.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

chmod600• 3 years ago

SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.

They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with.

And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.

dragonwriter• 3 years ago

SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.

I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.

blagie4• 3 years ago

OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed.

SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side.

Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example:

- The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity

- They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc.

- They might not have time, or there might be more important issues

... and so on.

I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.

pmoriarty• 3 years ago

The above assumes good faith and a lack of political agenda, which is not likely to be the case for the current Supreme Court.

Tangurena2• 3 years ago

For state versus state cases, the US Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear their cases.

giantg212• 3 years ago

"They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with."

There's also a possibility that they don't disagree with this. My understanding is the current test is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, a neighbor could film your house from across the street, so there is no expectation of privacy since anyone can do what the ATF did here.

So they would only take this case if they are interested in changing the standard test. Maybe they will in a future case, or maybe they are fine with the current test.

blagie4• 3 years ago

Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can:

* Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you

* Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs)

* Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows

... and so on.

Those were impossible 100 years ago, were expensive a few decades ago (outside of the means of my neighbors), are within the means of many individuals today, and will probably be very cheap in a few more decades years. That makes a world of difference.

I don't think my neighbor should be allowed to do any of those. I'd like my privacy.

LatteLazy3• 3 years ago

Surely declining to hear the appeal IS agreeing with the ruling, at least de-facto? Doing so because they are busy or don't want to interfere etc doesn't change that. At best they have retained the option to hear an identical case later, but SCOTUS always has that right anyway...

cvoss2• 3 years ago

No, it's not an agreement. Handing down a SCOTUS opinion is the most powerful thing they can do, and all lower courts are bound by it. But maintaining silence permits lower courts to continue operating each on its own best judgment. SCOTUS defers to the specialized authority of lower/local bodies all the time, saying, "We trust you have a better and more intimate perspective and will come to a good decision." That's not agreeing with a judgment call, that's letting somebody else make a judgment call, and being ok with the fact that SCOTUS may or may not have ruled differently.

Kim_Bruning• 3 years ago

It's interesting to note that -conversely- German laws on camera surveillance are very strict!

alewi4812• 3 years ago

I could see how the legacy of the Stasi in East Germany could contribute to an anti-surveillance sentiment.

lamontcg• 3 years ago

So after the US gets its own Stasi we should eventually get better anti-surveillance laws.

denton-scratch• 3 years ago

Nasty ACLU using a dark pattern: the page comes up overlaid with a donation panel. The panel can be dismissed, but only by clicking a [X] button that is well outside the panel. You have to look for it.

MagicMoonlight• 3 years ago

Arguing that cameras in a public place capturing only public places are an invasive search is an interesting argument.

zenexer• 3 years ago

A while back, there was a leak of some sort whereby many of these pole cameras in Massachusetts became accessible to the public. While this is anecdotal, it seemed to me at the time that the cameras were more than capable of peering through windows, as though someone were standing on the sidewalk with binoculars. The cameras themselves were concealed so they looked like utility equipment.

myrmidon• 3 years ago

I think there is a significant disconnect between a simple, consistent "theoretical" view on camera privacy and actual human sensibilities: I am very confident that humans in general are absolutely not comfortable with being the target of video recording; this became very evident with the whole google glass fiasco, when people wearing those were sometimes straight up banned from restaurants for making people uncomfortable- while surveillance cameras are less "targeted", less visible and at least provide marginal utility, it seems very clear to me that most humans consider it not appropriate to "video record" in every place that you could be "watched" by a bystander (and even just looking at people can drift into offensiveness- consider younger attractive persons veing creepily stared at).

I personally believe that cameras in public places should not be blanket banned, but that individuals should have a viable avenue to get them removed if they care to expend some (legal?) effort.

jzb2• 3 years ago

The idea is that the length and amount of surveillance is invasive.

You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week.

But if your neighbors take turns sitting on their porch, watching every move you make - if you can never come and go without them watching - and they’re taking notes and pictures of every visitor, every package, etc. - that would feel invasive for many people.

That’s the argument. Do you have a expectation of privacy in public? No. Do you have an expectation of constant surveillance? Also no.

giantg212• 3 years ago

"You expect when you walk out of the house a neighbor might see what you’re doing. Hard to call it invasive if that happens a few times a week."

I mean, maybe that's the expectation/argument from the 19th century. Cameras have been around a long time and are increasing in popularity among the general population (Ring etc). It might feel invasive, but there's no reasonable expectation of privacy legally.

kibwen• 3 years ago

A utility pole is not public property, it's government property. A member of the public is not legally allowed to just mount whatever equipment they want on the pole.

rasz2• 3 years ago

Try placing cameras recording federal judges in public spaces and see how that works out for you.

giantg212• 3 years ago

I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view. Let's not forget that even if a court decides the police need a warrant to film, a third party could do the filming and police could just buy the data legally. Again, not something I like, but that's how it goes.

There are very few details in the article. Now I'm curious how they found out about the camera, if charges were filed, etc.

scott_w• 3 years ago

police could just buy the data legally.

Doesn't this still fall foul of existing surveillance protections, though? The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead. Doesn't this fall into the bucket of turning the seller into an agent of the state?

gumby• 3 years ago

Your position is logical, but unfortunately there is by now a large body of precedent saying that that gaping loophole is fine. So for example police can’t track your movement without a warrant, but they can buy that info from the phone companies.

This could be fixed very simply by a law. The chances of such a law being passed are sadly extremely low.

syrrim• 3 years ago

The police can't circumvent legislation by just paying a PI to stalk you instead.

Why would they need to? Stalking you doesn't require a warrant. Breaking into your house, for example, would require a warrant, but a PI can't do that any more legally than the police can.

nulbyte2• 3 years ago

I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government. If an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee.

If an ordinary citizen cannot do it, I don't think police should ordinarily be permitted to do it; there should be a review. Given this lasted for months, there clearly wasn't immenent danger.

People have a right to be secure in their houses under the 4th amendment. People have a reasonable expectation that others will not install cameras on property they do not own for the purpose of surveiling a house the other does not own. Secretly installing a camera seems like a violation of that reasonable expectation, thus making it a search.

rayiner• 3 years ago

an ordinary citizen attached a camera to property they did not own and it was, say, pointed at a police officer's home, I think a conviction would be a near guarantee

Conviction for what?

giraffe_lady5• 3 years ago

If the utility company gave you explicit permission to put it there you'd be fine though. Which is almost certainly what happened here yeah?

VancouverMan2• 3 years ago

I wonder who owns the pole. Most utility poles are owned by the incumbent utility, not by the government.

Who owns the utility?

In Canada, for example, it's common for the utility companies responsible for electricity transmission and/or distribution to be owned by provincial or municipal governments.

giantg212• 3 years ago

Whichever party owns/maintains the poles can usually grant access to additonal parties if they see fit, including private citizens, other companies, the government, etc.

codingdave• 3 years ago

But most people staking out your home are somewhat obvious. A car parked across the street would be noticed, as would most permanent cameras. Getting permission to put something on a utility pole that is so small as to not be noticed is different, and whether or not that makes it illegal is exactly the question at hand.

Think about it as if it was a person -- while it might be legal for me to stand on the sidewalk and look at your home, I sure would get a different reaction if I stood there for days with binoculars looking through your windows 24/7.

So yes, viewing a home from a public space is legal, the question is not only what criteria would make it illegal, but what criteria should?

DirectorKrennic• 3 years ago

but what criteria should?

In a democracy, the will of the people. And in a dictatorship, the will of the leader. That's it, that's all.

People should take matters in their own hands and start taking down those cameras.

rolph2• 3 years ago

where i live, any unnatural aid [eg binoculars] required or used to observe a private property creates an offense s privacy, as well if the point of focus is a bathroom, bedroom, or changing area, the offense is sexual voyuerism

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 3 years ago

This isn't "viewing a home from public space".

When you walk down the sidewalk, and you see the home for the 30 seconds it takes you to move past where it is in view, you are "viewing" it. When you live across the street, and every once in awhile you pull back the blinds to see if the mail has come, and you incidentally see the house, that's public viewing.

When the government installs surveillance cameras aimed at the house 24/7 for the rest of eternity, they have access to details that no one could possibly know if they were "viewing a home from public space". 35 years later, they'll be able to search through the footage to see who left and at what hours of the evening for all of October 2024. We can't even know right now what they might be able to infer from the footage.

Even if an unmarked car sat out in front of the home, watching it for a week straight... that surveillance is ephemeral. No one will be able to ask the surveiller what happened 35 years later, he won't remember much. He was there for a 12 hour shift for 6 days straight. Not up for 5 month's non-stop. Not digital and losing not even a single bit of detail.

The two things aren't equivalent, not even slightly. Ephemeral and limited, versus forever and all-encompassing. That's the criteria.

quickthrower2• 3 years ago

If a third party is paid by the police to film you then they are an arm of the government too.

Otherwise yes some cameras are already there and may be pointing at your home, but that doesn’t mean it is OK for the police to stick a poll cam up and spy on you.

A police poll cam could pan and zoom as needed to get the questionable probable cause. So it is way more dangerous than a ring bell next door (ring bells don’t pick up much really)

lo_zamoyski• 3 years ago

there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view

Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good.

Clubber5• 3 years ago

Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good.

The legal problem is: do you now arrest a parent taking a picture of their child on a public street and your house happens to be in the frame? Of course not, but how do you legally differentiate the two?

35997279• 3 years ago

I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view

This is not a natural occurrence, not a law of physics like gravity. It’s the result of large corporations normalizing surveillance. Recall that some Germans rebelled against Google Street View, and the government made them stop putting photos people’s homes on the web. But the cold logic and power of surveillance capitalism prevailed, and even the nominally “privacy protecting” corporation Apple now does the same.

“That’s how it goes” implies it can’t be stopped. It can. Through laws. This branch of government just decided they’re not the ones to do it.

giantg212• 3 years ago

"“That’s how it goes” implies it can’t be stopped. It can. Through laws."

Well yeah, that's how it goes until the law changes.

fnordpiglet• 3 years ago

The difference is the police have extraordinary rights to search and seize your property with established probable cause, and the ability to violently detain, even kill you, if they observe anything that might give suspicion of a crime. Your neighbor can’t use footage they acquire for any purpose without your permission of you in your private life without running afoul privacy laws. But the crucial aspect is the extraordinary powers and rights the police are conferred to basically destroy your life on suspicion alone.

They did specify at a high level several cases and that at least in some charges were filed in the article, at least I read it that way:

“a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar — a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids — to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.”

lisper• 3 years ago

there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view

There is almost certainly something stopping your neighbor from mounting a camera permanently on a utility pole.

Also, just because an individual can do it does not automatically entitle the government to do it. There are many things individuals can do that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.

startupsfail2• 3 years ago

I think you can rent the spot on the pole, if you’d like to put a device there (e.g. a Wi-Fi retransmitter).

pnutjam• 3 years ago

My local library, seems to be planning to do this: <https://www.hepl.lib.in.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HEPL-B...>

From the linked document: I requested information regarding Flock security cameras from the company and spoke with their local sales rep, who provided the proposal in the packet for Board discussion. My understanding is that the library would essentially be subscribing to the data, and Flock would own and install the equipment, which would capture make, model, color and license plate data on all vehicles entering or exiting the library parking lots. This data would then be shared in real time with any law enforcement connected to the Flock network.

brightball• 3 years ago

Is there anything stopping me from pointing a laser at the lens in response?

daviddever23box• 3 years ago

My thoughts exactly.

Zak• 3 years ago

If you know that the laser will damage the camera, probably (destruction of property). If you believe it will just prevent recording of anything but the laser light, probably not.

This is of course not intended as legal advice.

93po2• 3 years ago

I've long thought about vandalizing red light cameras because they're a burden on the poor and statistically increase accidents. Vandalize like "cut it down with a sawzall" in a way that doesn't electrocute me. But high power laser makes a lot more sense and damages the most expensive part.

hwillis2• 3 years ago

Lots of things are illegal when the government does it, but not when regular people do it. That's like, a major part of the constitution. Here's what's relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.

DesiLurker• 3 years ago

how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none. I can understand carveouts for banned/non-public use frequencies but a blanket order must respect privacy.

atoav3• 3 years ago

Snitching on neighbours is a part of every successful authotarian system, be it fascist, communist or religious.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 3 years ago

While someone could privately conduct the surveillance and sell it to the police... they then become agents of the police, given that the police are the only reasonable market for such recordings. (The other possible market is hoping that stalkers want to buy it for select locations... after the first incident, legislation would quickly shut it down.)

Others in the past have noted that the police would be permitted to stake out the address in person, without warrant or much oversight. But the number of cops is finite, there are natural limits to how often and how long they can do that. There is no limit to how many cameras that police departments might collectively buy. There are plausible scenarios where multiple cameras are aimed at every address in the country. All of this can be stored indefinitely.

It amounts to warrantless search.

JoeAltmaier3• 3 years ago

I imagine if cameras and IoT devices continue to miniaturize, one day they'll float on the wind like a dandelion puff. Folks could spread them around like dust. Helicopters could crop-dust them over entire cities.

In future we'll have to come up with some social rules about ubiquitous surveillance. Because it will become the norm.

JoeAltmaier3• 3 years ago

There's a difference between 'no privacy from the street' and 'filming everything all the time'. Like the difference between picking an orange from a neighbor's tree, and bringing in a combine harvester.

Pedants will insist they are the 'same' somehow. But socially we know that's not true. It matters to us that we feel some sense of privacy most of the time. It's all about degree.

startupsfail2• 3 years ago

It’s called dragnet surveillance. It is problematic when it is used and it is illegal in most democratic countries.

LatteLazy3• 3 years ago

SCOTUS has been ducking these cases for almost 2 decades now. The concept of a meaningful warrant being required is basically dead at this point in the USA.

batch12• 3 years ago

I'm curious if there is a way to detect these. For local access (in case cellular fails or isn't needed), maybe they have a Bluetooth radio listening or a wifi AP.

photochemsyn• 3 years ago

The American government, including the political, bureaucratic and the judicial sectors, seems quite eager to implement the Chinese system of mass surveillance and control of the population, and would do so immediately if given the chance.

Incidentally, this warrantless camera surveillance of specific targets is fairly similar to the current practice of private companies engaging in surveillance of all kinds of online communities, then selling their collected data to the FBI, which thus avoids the need to go before a judge to get a warrant.

https://www.leefang.com/p/private-spies-hired-by-the-fbi-and

jjtheblunt• 3 years ago

On police documentary shows, it’s frequently stated that anything in public view is not considered private.

Is this different here (legally that is)?

friend_and_foe2• 3 years ago

Probably not.

Honestly the only difference between how things are done traditionally and this is that the cop watching the footage isn't in a car outside with a video camera. Fundamentally functionally the scenarios are no different, one is just less cumbersome to do.

Now, I do think that even manual surveillance should require a warrant, as well as purchasing private evidence such as doorbell camera footage, but I'm unlikely to see a ruling in my favor on that any time soon.

friend_and_foe2• 3 years ago

As much as I think the ACLU is right on this, I am very annoyed at their one sided, emotionally charged presentation of the situation. What is the legal argument that this doesn't require a warrant? What were the rationales of the judges on the circuit court in this case? You can't get a clear understanding of the issue from this organization.

The supreme court has a very important power, which is to decline to hear and review cases. I think it was probably the right call in this case, even though I disagree with lower courts ruling that it is constitutional. If the supreme court were compelled to hear cases, it would result in a lot of bad precedent, and the court reserves ruling on things and changing/solidifying the status quo unless it approaches a crisis that needs their resolution.

93po2• 3 years ago

ACLU creating an emotionally charged presentation makes sense if they:

1. Know the SC is going to decline anyway

2. Want press coverage and as much visibility on this as possible regardless

ACLU knows what they're doing. They're using the opportunity for (good) PR

SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

Related Stories