Some interesting conversations being had regarding flock camera surviellance and data centers across the web.

Most all know of the possible 4th Amendment issues but I would argue that the ever present police surveillance state would in practical effect violate the third.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Now that says Soldier and quartered so what do I mean by violation?

Well consider just what our founders objected to in the Quartering Act as clearly written in the Declaration of Independence.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"

Now consider this, at the time of our founding police forces did not exist. No community, state/colony, or national government had a force dedicated to law enforcement save for tax officers and the military. So I would opine that law enforcement as we experience today are the New Offices our founders objected to and would consider them to be Standing Armies and large bodies of armed troops among us.

You probably just opened a can of worms
The Data center supporters will not agree at all
I believe that the 3rd is a State issue because of ruling that lower courts have passed and the SCOTUS refused to hear them

But I'm just a nut job, what do I know

There were Constables and Night Watch from the very beginning. I had many great grandfathers holding those positions in the early 1600s. Boston had a Night Watch by 1636.

There was a jail in very early Jamestown, I've read how the prisoners were let out during the Powhatton Massacre. There was a famous fire, started in a prison in Jamestown, years later, close to 1700, that did massive damage to the structures and records.

Keith

Watchmen, yes, and we've always had means of enforcing civil behavior, often via religious authority. What we never had were paramilitary forces patrolling and surveilling every aspect of our daily lives. What protection is the 4th when technology can render property boundaries and even the very walls of our homes meaningless?

So where are these cameras being placed without consent of the owner?

It's not about permissions of placement but instead that of trespass across property lines, invasion of expectations of privacy, warrantless search and seizure, interference of commerce, and institution of a general state of fear.

As an example, just how would you react if your adjoining neighbors placed cameras, thermal sensors, microphones, flew drones all on their own property but directly pointed at your property and home to include doors and windows. Then allowed all recordings to be accessed by anyone on the web? Because that is exactly what the police are doing and they, unlike your neighbors, have the authority to take you into state custody at gunpoint on just mere suspicion.

What are you trying to hide?
I think they need to take a closer look at you.

You should subscribe to: https://bluetogold.com/ It's FREE on You Tube. You may learn something.

And that right there is why you still kneel to a german king.

So if you or a cop see your neighbor being murdered in the front yard, you can't be called as a witness for a crime? I believe that is part of the Plain View doctrine.

If you don't want your neighbor watching you, build a fence or plant some trees.

Now I dont believe government should be ae.to have access to any such videos without warrants. And service provides should also be allowed to give government access to the data without the customers consent or warrant.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" -Lavrentiy Beria, the ongest-serving secret police chief under Joseph Stalin

It's not for you to judge whether you're innocent in the eyes of the government.

Ah so you hold with the private party/sector loophole. The popo aren't doing the warrantless search and seizure the private sector is the peeping tom but voyuerism is perfectly fine as long as the pervert tells the cops what he sees, right?

I think that line of reasoning is tainted fruit.