This is a good point, and the infrared camera case is the one that came to my mind as well. That case can be easily distinguished on the grounds that Flock doesn’t use any super-human abilities (i.e., infrared sensors) to see the license plates. The Court would have to interpret it broadly, to prohibit use of technology that allows for rapid/broad collection of data at a scale that was not possible by human efforts alone. That may come, but it’s far from certain when (or what side of the line Flock would fall on).
> My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable".
as people knowingly expose their licence plates in public places, as this is a legal requirement for the use of highways, they also reasonably believe they have an expectation of privacy against a constant and continuous search because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".
Of course, you know, this is just my opinion, man.
