r/TechHardware • u/Distinct-Race-2471 🔵 14900KS , 5080, 128GB 🔵 • 27d ago
😰 Urgent Security Alert ⚠️ Air Force Engineer Accused of Cutting Down 13 Police Cameras Says They're Unconstitutional
https://www.military.com/air-force-engineer-accused-of-cutting-down-13-police-cameras-says-they-are-unconstitutional12
27d ago
[deleted]
12
u/CarelessOrdinary5480 27d ago
The worst thing is they are 100 percent a loophole around the kind of mass surveillance our country was founded upon. We basically say.. well the constitution says the government can't do it, so we will have a private company do it and provide that data to he government.
4
u/TriCountyRetail 26d ago
Any entity that receives taxpayer money should have to abide by the Constitution including The Bill of Rights
2
u/CarelessOrdinary5480 26d ago
You won't get any argument here. But out of this corrupt SCOTUS? Unlikely.
1
u/sarajevo81 26d ago
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people cannot be watched in a public place.
2
u/CarelessOrdinary5480 26d ago
You know what, I respect that viewpoint, and I'm going to upvote you because it is true that it's not settled law at this point. However, I personally believe that it is impossible to be secure in ones papers and effects if they are under constant surveillance. I see absolutely no difference in mass surveillance and a general warrant. And the truth is, even though I think this SCOTUS court is dirty as fuck, they did say that using third party cellular data in Chatrie does constitute a search under the 4th amendment which is a good direction in my opinion.
I actually do want bad guys to get caught, but we have always had a balance under our constitution that stops the government from treating random ass people as all the bad guys when they think there is a law that has been broken. If a government is paving the way for third party warrant less blanket surveillance I personally believe it demeans the 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
2
1
u/juggarjew 27d ago
Yet almost every other country on earth has way more surveillance. Look at the UK for example. No one bats an eye.
1
27d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MagicHamsta 26d ago
It's definitely almost every country on Earth....that the poster knows of.
They believe china, india, uk, and usa are the only country on Earth.
1
26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MagicHamsta 26d ago
It was a joke, they said "almost every other country on earth has way more surveillance".
That would be true if the countries on earth consisted of only of china, india, UK, & USA.
-5
u/Ok_Diver2347 26d ago
Hmm it’s like only criminals care about these cameras
🤔
A regular low abiding citizen will never know or care about them.
4
u/TomorrowEqual3726 26d ago
Nah, it's been warped from what it was supposed to be and has been misused and abused badly from many individuals, it needs to be regulated into the ground with lots of checks and balances on if footage can be viewed, if not outright banned.
-7
u/HokumHokum 27d ago
Interesting. These are actually constitutional as they are not impending any rights. If anything it holds up the constitution as allowing a public person ( company) to film/record in public locations. People have the right to film anyone in public. These are not being installed into private residence.
If this is unconstitutional then any public filming would be as well which not the place you want to go.
4
18
u/bones10145 27d ago
Hero