Where is the outrage again?

you are already on surveillance cameras around 12 times a day on average anyways...

well I do not see any difference between a private retailer putting up surveillance cameras and a govt owned transit system putting up cameras (especially if you know there are cameras due to signage being placed letting you know)

bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 10:24 AM

mr2tony - 2012-12-13 11:09 AM

JoshR - 2012-12-13 10:56 AM

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/public-bus-audio-surveillance/

 

Wonderful. Who needs the 4th amendment. 

Coming to a courthouse near you ... Is there an expectation of privacy on a public bus? That said, I have a problem with this the same way I had a problem with CCTV in London when I lived there. The government doesn't need to know where I'm going, what I'm doing or with whom I'm consorting. By putting CCTV on streets as they do in England they're literally doing what Big Brother did in 1984. This is just a step closer to CCTV on streets in the U.S.

If this stops a bombing, a mass shooting, etc......everyone would be fine with it. But....since everyone thinks that they're being spied on and that the gov't cares that much about what you're doing, then it's not okay. I could give two chits less if "Big Brother" is 'watching' me. I lead a pretty boring life. You may catch me picking my nose....or leaning to fart....or talking about the persons outfit that just got on the bus. Other than that....you got nothing. Tape/record away. I have no expectation of privacy in a store, outside of a store, in the airport, at my office.....really anywhere in public. Now....tell me that there's one in my house or that I must have CCTV and a mic in there....that's another story. I can't make profit off of my "encounters" if the public can already see.

Now that the NDAA allows for indefinite detention of American Citizens, are you still okay with it? 

But what I do not understand with what you are saying is this: You know, say Target, uses cameras and you are OK with it because you know, but if you know the bus uses cameras ahead of time, you aren't OK with it cause its the Govt?? Is that what I am reading?

Here's a thought.  Don't have conversations in public that you don't want to be public.  As noted, no expectation of privacy, thus no 4th amendment issues.  Save the outrage for true violations, I guess

That's why they built the massive Data center in UT, to process all of the recordings/emails/phone calls/etc.

Since you are a lawyer and I'm not (I pretend!) does this mean that once I step out of my house, I have no expectation of privacy?

Not to speak for Tony, but yes, that is the issue.  Target isn't a government entity and doesn't have to abide (for the most part) with restrictions on illegal searches and seizures.  Essentially, its because Target can kick you out of  the store, but they aren't the one who has the right and ability to prosecute a citizen for an alleged crime.

Having said that to frame the issue, I don't know where I fall whether I think CCTV on a public bus constitutes an illegal search.  Clearly a cop on the bus could watch and listen to what I'm doing, so its not much different than that.  It does feel more intrusive because of the 24/7 aspect of it.  I am not one to go for slippery slope arguments, but I do think this does lead to the next question of surveillance from unmanned drones.  That ability to see into more private areas does start getting a little frightening.  Technology has allowed for situations not clearly contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution. 

I pretend too sometimes.  Being a lawyer just means you know how to look up the law a little quicker    But here's a lawyerly answer for you- it depends.  But to use the transportation example, have an expectation of privacy in your car.  You wouldn't on a public bus.  On a train, you would in a private cabin, but not in a general seating area. 

All well and good to slowly trample the constitution. People go along because it will "keep them safe" or they "have nothing to hide". 

What happens 25-50 years later when all this is in place and the rest of the constitution has been gutted? Welcome to the police state.

If it catches a terrorist or criminal I am fine with it.

Everyone's begging the question

Where is the Constitutional violation?  Is there an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy for conversations held on a public bus?  Do you subjectively believe that your conversations on a public bus not held in a whisper would be private?

If there's a violation, I'm with ya.  I haven't seen it yet though. ETA - there may be issues with the technology, i.e. a recording vs. a cop standing on the bus.  ANd even then, a recording is substantively different (in my mind at least) than a drone, as recording devices are in the general public, and are not reserved to the overnment.  But for purposes of the Constitutional analysis, it's the same thing as far as the expectation of privacy goes.

I'm with you Tony. See, it isn't just the 2A.

Seriously, it's B.S.