IDK if it will directly impact Flocks - although I don't know it won't. But at the very least, it helps build momentum. There is a national level, bipartisan bill to heavily restrict ALPR now. The more legal momentum there is vs related issues like geofence requests, the easier it is for that to pass. Also a lot of municipalities have already banned ALPRs locally, so that also helps build momentum.

I fucking hate ALPRs.

Calling Flock “ALPR” is dangerously misleading. They track faces, phones, wireless headphones, smartwatches, clothing/outfits, distinctive scrapes and dents on cars, and more.

Shouldn’t this also apply to cameras and audio recording devices going up everywhere

It only applies to the government, by requiring 4A protections for geofence requests. A judicial warrant will be needed for the cops to go to Google or w/e and say, "Give us everyone in this area on Tuesday Aug 9th". Which ofc will include innocent ppl along with the accused. It won't directly efffect private recording and data collection.

There are tricky issues around private collection. Conflicting rights between parties, even. Anyway, it's possible that this + other cases like Carpenter v. United States could restrict gov purchases of loc data on the open market, not just direct requests to Google. NAL, and IDK how it might go. I imagine we might see further lawsuits as this bubbles through the legal system and there are 2ndary issues that arise from it.

naw without that they would need location tracking to not be protected. but as long as alternative ways to track location exists then sure, let them believe they aren't being tracked. its good publicity.

I think two party consent will be broadly ruled unconstitutional if it ever gets that far up nowadays. It’s already not applicable to public recording.

Disclaimer -> NAL. I think it's extraordinarily rare for rulings to have retroactive effect. If sth was legal when you did it, you can't be held to account if that thing becomes illegal later on. That would open up all kinds of bad probs. Editing to add, your ability to follow the law today, can't require that you successfully predict future laws or future court decisions.

But geo-fence data already collected would fall under this decision in the future. So let's say there's 2024 data. Data still exists on some Google server. Now it's 2028. Cops would need a warrant to obtain the 2024 data in 2028.

That's my understanding. Again NAL.

Only if the gov't is using that data. Then that data is inadmissible in court and if used/abused can carry swift significant consequences. If private companies (aka gov't funded public troff whores) continue to abuse it, unless met with pushback by civil lawsuits, the abuse will continue.