Is this any different, legally, than sharing your Netflix login etc?
Because the data is purchased, most jurisdictions don't require a warrant. The only legal issue I can see currently is that Flock lost revenue from having another subscriber.
Because the data is purchased, most jurisdictions don't require a warrant. The only legal issue I can see currently is that Flock lost revenue from having another subscriber.
I am not a lawyer, just curious.
But even if it were legal, this only shows the core problem:
That data should not be available to anyone at all.
—
In any case, these Netflix and LLM subscription comparisons are utterly beside the point, the equation is hilariously different when it’s a surveillance tool used by the state violence monopoly that we’re talking about. The standard should be absurdly higher than "no big deal, everyone shares their Netflix".
It's easy to argue (as lot of people have in this thread) that there is a huge moral difference between sharing access to a streaming service and sharing access to a mass surveillance tool.
But was any criminal law broken? Is it just a violation of Flock's ToS and the biggest consequence is the police department losing access for violating the contract?
It's an important question, because if there isn't really any legal consequences for any of the parties involved then it's worth understanding that and, hopefully, addressing!
If we interpret OP's question in good faith, I don't think they are implying that it should be legal, just asking if it is.
The additionally annoying aspect about the question is that this is something privacy advocates have been going on about for years. Ever since I started following the EFF in 2012, they've been warning about the rise in private sector mass surveillance and how it would lead to government CCTV. And now here we are, with Ring doorbells sharing data with LEOs and Flock everywhere.
So to hear 'is this illegal' says to me, at minimum, that a dearth of basic internet sleuthing has been done about this issue and the question was posed out of a complete lack of curiosity and self-driven exploration. Especially now with LLMs, research like this is vanishingly easy to do (as is the adversarial review of it, and the eventual dialectical synthesis). To not do so seems lazy, at best, and that's not addressing how the 'if it's not illegal, it's fine' thought-terminating cliche has been pervasively used to justify detention centers, military black sites, NSA wiretapping, police brutality, etc in a way that seems to universally be a bad faith practice.
It doesn’t seem like any criminal charges being brought in this case. So sure, an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment, but under the current application of the law this seems legal. Which means all and ICE agent needs to get access to flock data is a friend with access. Surely trying to understand that isn’t lazy or justifying anything?
I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it. Unless you're an actual civil rights attorney, a legislator, or some kind of judge, you, me, and everyone else here has effectively zero power over how the law is interpreted. We can debate all we want but it's a dance in the ivory tower, removed from realworld consequence.
The only real way to push against these forces is to join up with a community organization local to you, volunteer groups that often struggle with basic tech setup and resource tracking. Folks from HN could be a huge boon to the movement if they simply had the initiative to get involved.
I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?
My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.
In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."
I get the feeling the question being asked a bit leading, since you've been pretty hostile to me so far. I don't have a great answer, civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal for private companies to create gigantic mass surveillance dragnets?
I'm not being hostile and you're reading a lot of intent here for my frustration at apathetic armchair quarterbacking that I didn't direct at you.
I guess I don't know who else it's directed at. I think it's important to understand the legality of our law enforcement's actions. I don't think that's an especially controversial take.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dekalb-county/statue-john-l...
https://atlanta.capitalbnews.org/atlanta-communities-fight-d...
And these are just the movements I've personally been involved with. There's plenty of other examples rarely covered by mass media.
Source?
I think the legal understanding are different than the colloquial one you are thinking of.
We should be advocating for more accountability from the government and its representatives, not less.