Liberi di sorvegliare innocenti incensurati senza mandato alcuno.
Solo perchè una cosa si può tecnicamente fare e manca una regola specifica non è che significhi che è giusto farla. Bisognerebbe risalire un po’ ai principi che hanno spinto a determinare limiti per garantire le liberta’ di tutti.
Metti che tra quei filmati salti fuori un amante trans dell’avvocato o altra cosa non illecita ma socialmente considerata riprovevole nella sua comunità…
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
In this case, police secretly attached a small camera to a utility pole, using it to surveil a Massachusetts home 24/7 for eight months — all without a warrant. Law enforcement could watch the camera’s feed in real time, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to read license plates and see faces. They could also review a searchable, digitized record of this footage at their convenience. The camera captured every coming and going of the home’s residents and their guests over eight months. As a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar — a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids — to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.
…
“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has already held that continuous, long-term pole camera surveillance of a home constitutes a search requiring a warrant under the Massachusetts Constitution. But the Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to ensure that protection nationwide.”
Continua qui: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Warrantless Pole Camera Surveillance | American Civil Liberties Union
