3 comments

  • twoodfin 3 minutes ago

    To its credit, the article covers all the reasons why the Chatrie decision won’t be determinative for this case.

    But the headline and narrative paint way too optimistic (if you’re anti-Flock) picture of Chatrie’s impact.

    In particular the search identified by Chatrie (Google’s database of expected-private location records, including movement in the home and other private spaces) has almost no analog in third-party-owned recordings of public movement.

  • josefritzishere 19 minutes ago

    It is self-evident that a very narrow examination of a very narrow data set is different than the 24/7 unlimited surveillance of everything. The law should support this basic proposition no matter where they decide the dividing line is. Flock is on the wrong side of an open air prison. I hope they lose.

  • mannanj 8 minutes ago

    Here's a reminder that a Montana-LLC registered car is a legitimate privacy-preserving use case and not the tax-evasion that Straw Manners and Ad Hominem attackers make appear to be.

    You can still pay your use tax and be a good citizen, and in fact, its probably a better demonstration of your duties as a citizen to protect the right to privacy and say to your local governments that have a history of abusing and selling vehicle registration data to 3rd parties that you do not tolerate that.

    Happy to share more, the sites for Montana registration can be shady but the dirt legal one is great.