[stefan_]

If the supreme court can learn new tricks, I'm confident HN can finally learn the difference between a police officer on his beat and a fully-automated data firehose mined in realtime or other perversions of technology. Witness United States v. Jones, the opinion delivered by Scalia:

The Government contends that the Harlan standard shows that no search occurred here, since Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area of the Jeep accessed by Government agents (its underbody) and in the locations of the Jeep on the public roads, which were visible to all. But we need not address the Government’s contentions, because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, we must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.”

[jerrybee]

Viewing a public tweet is not trespassing - its the point of the entire platform. US vs Jones determined that installing a tracker on a private vehicle is trespassing.

As a tax payer, I would prefer my tax dollars are used as efficiently as possible - so if the alternative is to hire human police officers to manually search twitter and create reports then I would oppose that in favor of automated technology. I don't think the technology is the debate here, it simply enables us as humans to be more efficient. The decision to surveil is the debate here, and I can see it both ways. Do I think the police should be aware of a large gathering (regardless of purpose) in their cities? Yes, I think that's prudent for a variety of public safety reasons. Do I want this done in a way that does not interfere with protests or have a chilling effect? Yes, absolutely.

[starfallg]

This is an ever present issue as technology advances and what was not possible to efficiently or effectively do before is now possible through these new techniques. And it is not limited to government and law enforcement either, the worst transgressions are from the private sector and political campaigns.

As a society we are only starting to become aware of the implications. "Fair game" is the biggest misnomer - it is anything but.