@SigSoured@lowfatbatman@mattvanswol Oh...but I do. There is a difference between "use" and "misuse". I get some people are mad they can't continue to commit crime but there are guardrails for LE... United States v. Knotts still applies.
Tried to go to @Whataburger in Albuquerque...had to walk out before ordering. They've gotten so bad at taste and service. The food is now just meh... Where is the Whataburger pride? #Albuquerque#sad#thisaintTX
@ampersandohms@4CubaLibra@mattvanswol Those very things can be true and it's still not a 4A issue with the cameras. The problem is with the use of the cameras. If used correctly, they are not an issue.
@robertsldffly@4CubaLibra@mattvanswol Nope...that's not the general rule. If there is misuse of the data or if there is prolonged specific surveillance, then a warrant may be required.
@MarilynFon7168@4CubaLibra@mattvanswol Nah...it's not and courts have generally agreed. If the cameras are misused (like any eff'n law on the books) then it is a problem.
@KCKDesign@whatever Sissy boy KCKDesign blocked a reply...go figure. But what does his mom and "faggots" have to do with one another other then being people KC loves...
@DrueWhitmer@4CubaLibra@mattvanswol You have no expectation of privacy in public. That is well established in law. If the system is abused, that is another matter. However, just having them and collecting data is not abuse. If you don't agree, pass a law...
@4CubaLibra@mattvanswol They are not "invasion of privacy"...you have no privacy in public...it's kind of in the definition of "public". They are constitutional if used as intended.