[sphinxpy]

Every person in these towns that have this violation of basic rights, should be demanding the takedown immediately but they won't. Again and again the people of this country fall for the "trust us. We are her to help you." lie that our government sells. If they do care, many people are in a state of disagreement and division so much that they won't work together out of spite if it means working with another ideology.

America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.

[toomanybeersies]

Serious question, natural rights aside, is this actually a violation of basic rights in a legal sense (laws, constitutions, etc)?

[everybodyknows]

See section 632(b) of California Penal Code:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh....

[Reelin]

I actually read through that entire document out of curiosity. As far as I can tell it only applies to audio recording (and telegraphs, and cable TV, and a couple other misc items, but not video from what I see). Also, there's the bit right at the top:

> Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.

I'm not sure how large or small that loophole is according to the courts.

-----

Then as I was glancing through it, I noticed that this is the law that makes CA a two party consent state:

§632(a)

> without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication

§632(d)

> evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible

So that sucks.

§633.5

> do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of

But at least it's slightly better as of... 2018. It only took them until 2018 to add that. FFS.

-----

This one was a pleasant surprise though:

§637.7

> No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA? I'm also wondering about all that cell phone location data that was sold (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3b3dg/big-teleco...). Have I misunderstood something?

[yellowapple]

> So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA?

It's worth looking at the whole section:

    CA Penal Code § 637.7 (2017)  
    
    (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
    electronic tracking device to determine the location or
    movement of a person.
    
    (b) This section shall not apply when the registered
    owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to
    the use of the electronic tracking device with respect
    to that vehicle.
    
    (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
    electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
    
    (d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking
    device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other
    movable thing that reveals its location or movement by
    the transmission of electronic signals.
    
    (e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
    
    (f) A violation of this section by a person, business,
    firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation
    licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000)
    of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute
    grounds for revocation of the license issued to that
    person, business, firm, company, association,
    partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions
    that provide for the revocation of the license as set
    forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of
    the Business and Professions Code.

I guess it depends on how you define "vehicle or other movable thing". Children are technically things and they are technically movable, so if the child didn't consent to being tracked, I guess it's technically illegal (and since a child probably does not fit the definition of "vehicle", it's not sufficient for the "owner, lessor, or lessee" of a child - i.e. a parent or guardian - to provide that consent).

However, IIRC there are a lot of cases where a parent's consent is considered to be equivalent to the child consenting, and this might be one of them; as long as the parent consents to the child being tracked, it'd be legal in such a case.

Obligatory "I ain't a lawyer".

[Reelin]

Agreed in general, but the thing is... children can't generally enter contracts or otherwise "consent" to most things in a legal context. True that parents can be stand-ins sometimes, but I'm not at all clear on what the limits for that are.

I too was initially confused by the "or other movable thing" part, but I'm pretty sure the the cell phone itself qualifies as a movable thing in this context.

[mark212]

Great point: let’s have an honest and fact-based discussion. This blog post isn’t that. Turn up at a council meeting and tell the elected politicians that you don’t want to be spied on. Make the police defend their use of the footage. Convince others to agree with you. That’s democracy and at this level of government it works pretty well.