Establishing Fourth Amendment Protections Against Unreasonable Traffic Surveillance And Record Storage

Liberty
1

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was created by our Founding Fathers to protect WE THE PEOPLE (Sons & Daughters of the Republic) against unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection was created in order to keep government authorities (esp. the soldiers of the British Crown) from spying on our movements, recording our comings and goings, and springing surprise searches of our homes, papers, person, and effects, in an effort to find cause to imprison us.

With the quick advance of technology, and the political ā€œdumbing-downā€ of the American People, including police officers and law enforcement in general, the lines have become blurred regarding the Fourth Amendment protections for the American People.

For the past decade, FLOCK cameras (license plate reader cameras) have popped up all over the country, forming a massive nationwide network of pentabytes of archived pictures and text record identification of Americans traveling around the country, the city, even the neighborhood block. Entire mobile profiles are created on individuals, complete with geo-positioning maps, showing the places they frequent and the driving habits they perform ā€“ all WITHOUT a search warrant or a reasonable cause for doing so. The information sits to this day, on giant server farms, as archived but accessible data to any police official across the country, who might be interested in your comings and goings over the past two or more years.

There are little to no restrictions on the FLOCK camera network because of the speed and breadth to which it was rolled out across America. It has now reached the point of being a ā€œBig Brotherā€ Monster, with very little checks and balances in place regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically mentioned in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Now that this invasive unconstitutional network has been brought to the attention of the American People, what do you all suggest that we do about curtailing this grave administrative violation? Any ideas? When should they traffic cams be used? When should they not? How long should traffic camera data be archived before being deleted? If no crime was observed, why would this data be archived in the first place, to be analyzed for pattern recognition even years later? Who can access this data, and what safeguards are in place to prevent theft or cyberhacking of private behavior data? Any and all welcomed!

Search Suggestions:

flok
flok773Ɨ495 108 KB

3 Likes
2

Check out this thread: 3rd Party Vehicle Survalence Cammeras

1 Like
3

I absolutely agree. Big brother NO MORE! This is a form of entrapment and the p.d. swamp creatures who have not yet been criminally charged for their corruption are using these to hunt innocent people. They track your every movement which is actually Stalking. Stalking by a force of mostly men who illegally target women. They also need body cams across the board to keep them honest. I believe an interaction with police should be taped to protect both parties. No more plate readers, traffic cams and illegal stops to stuff their own pockets. The cops are guilty of this, the courts and judges are complicit as are the town halls who all want a piece of the action. Lastly, no more " mandatory"registrations, licenses,inspection stickers or insurance. People have to choose between food and medicine. The illegal fines,fees and illegitimate expenses generated from these practices can destroy a person, marriage or family. There is NO choice when a ridiculous fine must be paid (or have a warrant pulled out on you) or pay your rent. Thatā€™s not freedom, thatā€™s tyranny.

1 Like
4

I would suggest that, at the very least, there should be a mandatory purge every 7 years (or whatever) that is overseen by an outside entity. Also, some sort of FISA court type process be required for anyone- including all law enforcement- before access is granted to an Americanā€™s data.

3 Likes
5

I agree with you the government and local police should not monitor or keep surveillance on average citizens. I do, however, want to also state that it should, or be worth considering, only to be justifiable if an individual has been speculated of commiting a crime with a court order or has evidence of very suspicious behavior or purchases (this can be a person informing the police of speculative or very suspicious behavior; a person making suspicious or ā€˜red-flagā€™ purchases worth noting such as chemical, torture equipment, and other items that are highly suspicious that is worth investigating). Note these ideals are not set in stone, iā€™m still thinking about them because people should also be protected from unwarranted snooping and surveillance to protect individual freedoms. Iā€™m guessing perhaps an unbiased jury can help make the distinction of what should be approved and reasonable for investigation.

6

The institute for Justice is suing the city of Norfolk VA over the installation of a Flock system due to its serious 4th amendment concerns, check out their YouTube video on the case.

Another concern is Fog, which is a private cellphone tracking service that aggregates cell phone ping data and sells it to law enforcement. While the data is anonymized, it is not difficult to associate a phones ID number to a physical address, or using Flock tie it to a specific vehicle.

This data would be illegal for governments to gather on their own without a warrant, yet it is merely a PO away from any government agency to fish through with none of the specificity that a warrant would require. What is worse is government agencies mislead the court when this data is used to target a citizen. For instance, an agency can use Fog data to identify a suspect, then follow the suspect until they can initiate a pretexual stop to interrogate / search the suspect. Knowing that Fog is constitutionally suspect, the use of Fog to initiate the stop is concealed from the suspects council and the court.