When cops get a FLOCK hit, they seem to shut the rest of their brain off and think they got their suspect and fail to do any actual corroborative investigation.

But this idea that we must endure this police bullshit because "flock catches criminals" is nonsense. You know what would also catch more criminals? Not having any rights. Cops entering your home and searching everything of yours any time they feel like it. But that is absurd. So using it as justification is likewise absurd.

William Pitt, the Younger

Unless it's the government's property...

Fun Fact.

Qualified immunity is made up by the courts. It's not a law.

No, stories like that don't exist. Because if a cop breaks the blue line of silence, the other cops make their lives miserable, or worse.

But there IS human oversight. The police police themselves!

That is what I want to know. Why the fuck are AI uploading malicious software?

Given SCOTUS' treatment of a government agent searching a database constituting a "search" under the 4th amendment (Chatrie v. United States). This is unconstitutional.

But hey it's a LEO agency, they'll just investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty of any wrong doing...

I think the article is pointing out two things: 1.) Amazon is training it's LLM's on copyrighted material and 2.) Amazon is destroying rare books that are obscure and hard to get, thus destroying knowledge. Most likely to cover up #1.

No. I've cited SCOTUS several times on this. You're wrong.

The act of searching a specific plate up in the government's database is a defacto search under the 4th Amendment as ruled repeatedly by SCOTUS. That the lower circuit courts ignore this (also repeatedly) doesn't change this fact.

SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that a private citizens movements while in public are considered private. Thus, public license plate readers are not actually legal under the 4th amendment. Lower level courts like to to do mental gymnastics to justify them, but at the SCOTUS level they are not legal.

For instance in 4th circuit appeals case, Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, the courts argued that with regards to fixed location license plate readers, that their "brief" and "non-continuous snapshots" of a vehicle on public streets, doesn't constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment. But in several other cases such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), SCOTUS has concluded that monitoring a persons movements, be it via camera, cell phone data, gps, etc. all constitute a "search" under the 4A and enjoy privacy protections.

As Local ID10T aptly put:

Also the SCOTUS has stated:

The problem is that the purpose for which the government is recording in public is to track you which violates the 4th Amendment in multiple ways. Ergo, while you have no expectation of privacy in the public with regard to observation of your person, your movements and any databased data on your persons in aggregate, do.

I would like to add to your point that SCOTUS has ruled that, while you do not have a general expectation of privacy in public, some things you do while in public, do enjoy a level of privacy: specifically your movements.

From Carpenter v. United States (20180), a recent case about Geofencing:

I'm thinking he brought it up because one of the primary means of identifying the people involved during the J6 incident was Cell Tower Dumps.

It was also brought up in several court case regarding the J6 defendants, and it was deemed legal and not a 4A violation then.

Which creates a set of double standards. As a matter of fact, just about everything in the prosecution of the J6'ers, legally is nothing but double standards and blatant constitutional and legal violations. But no one seems to give a shit because of tribalism, and they'd rather see the nation burn to the ground than admit they're wrong.

Searching and obtaining data from flock cameras, is in fact unconstitutional absent a warrant, specifically describing the incident being searched. The courts already ruled in multiple instances about this. Another specific case is Carpenter v. United States (2018).

They don't care about catching criminals either.

What they care about is prestige (looking important) and collecting their pension. Everything else is not even secondary, but to be discarded for "officer safety".