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.

Some flock were installed recently on my preferred route to work, so I changed my route a street over. Ive read one too many stories of people wrongly arrested just because they were shown to be in the area. I hope this somehow limits all this surveillance of normal everyday people, but I won't hold my breath.

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.

Doubtful. All they have to do is cry "terrorism" and they're allowed to do whatever they want.

please avoid from using the word honor while mentioning the great satan. the last 20 attempts at diplomacy with iran tell you they're lying bastards and their word is worth a thousand shits.

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. It was OK at the time.

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.