If Flock flags license plates at the request of the government, it is acting as an agent of the state and is required to meet governement/constitutional requirements.
How does flock get around this? It can't be an agent of the state AND be private and exempts from 4th amendment/all constitutional requirements?
Solari: No sir, unless he was for some reason acting on behalf of the government or had been asked by a government agent to do that. Unless that were the case then if that person was acting in his own private capacity as a UPS or FedEx employee then he would not be a government agent for 4th Amendment purposes.
Miller: Can private parties ever trigger the 4th Amendment?
Solari: Yes, as we discussed, if a private party were to be acting at the behest of the government -- if a government agent were to ask that FedEx person to open up a package and look inside, or to ask someone’s girlfriend to go through their things looking for evidence to turn over to the police, then that would be government activity. That would be the actions of a government agent because government agents can’t ask private parties to do something they themselves couldn’t do under the 4th Amendment, so in that type of instance it would be extended to that private party.
How are they not an 'agent of the state' and how does the 4th not apply? If the government asked for the scan/info on the vehicle, they are acting on behalf of the government?
Flock claims that "Fourth Amendment case law overwhelmingly shows that LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars"
And that may be true, however Carpenter v. US established that long-term tracking of a person's location without a warrant is still not allowed under the Fourth Amendment.
Maybe ones who don't follow supreme religious leaders that called for the gunning down of 3000 men, women, and children in the streets. And then approve beatings/the murder of doctors that treated them.
Imagine that being your moral leadership. And 3000 is the official Iranian number. Some claim as high as 30,000. Those religious leaders are calling for more murder/death in todays Friday prayers. I don't know how anyone who calls for (or especially signs off on in a religious theocracy) murder can be called spiritual leaders or anyone could follow their 'teachings' .
Edit: Just highlighting the horrors/behaviors you are normalizing/waive away as 'shared by everyone' with your statement 'but what humans aren't like this'.
Ok but could you point to anyone or any people and tell me that they're rational? I didn't just ask for a possible condition of rationality and "maybe" feels like a very flimsy foundation for the acidity of what you're saying.
I think you're conflating "rational" with "moral". The question was about rationality, and from their POV (given the goal of keeping the regime going) everything was rational.
They have always done the same. Just attack everyone and then get the win by getting others to fight for them. Get the maximum reaction through PR/propaganda. It's how they came to power in the first place. It's how they got a massive leftist uprising to unseat the previous government.
Before and during 1979. They'd attack the security forces, deny their involvement and then blame the government for the response, which then was supposedly an attack (e.g. Khomeini would send armed men into protests then put out propaganda that security forces "fired at protestors"). Or argue that the response to their attack was disproportionate. Or argue that his forces "don't have any choice but to" ... etc. This has been the way their proxy forces fight (hamas, houthi's, hezbollah). Control and punish people who detail what their side does (they massacred their own soldiers and their own allies, not just once. This is why people argue they're not leftists: they massacred the leftist factions that helped them unseat the Shah government)
They never explain their own actions. If anything, they put them forth as rational. But more likely you'll never hear about them. Such as killing 30000 people in January when their propaganda efforts totally failed. That's what happened: due to devaluation a number of traders in the "Tehran Bazaar" (a set of streets with lots of stands) very publicly, including to tourists, complained that the government made their lives impossible through economic mismanagement.
They locked off the streets and started going through, killing everybody they possibly could, "clearing" the market as they called it. Men, women, a few children who were sent to buy bread for their families. A few hundred dead. (yes, the way the Iranian government fights has more than a few parallels to what the Nazi's did)
This then set off the large scale protests everywhere in Iran.
Btw: the Iranian tactics are obviously working to some extent. Hence it's probably rational to do this because
'gunning down 3,000 to 30,000 of your country's men, women, and children in the streets because they don't feel one gender should be forced to wear hats upon pain of abuse/rape/death is completely rational'
Iran is targeting random ships crewed by third world/unaligned national crews in the straight. Iran's goal is do whatever it takes to put pressure. They are willingly threatening the food supply of large unaligned parts of the world because it gives them leverage/puts on pressure.
Iran's proxies murdered random grandmothers on Oct 7th and uploaded the video to the internet to get a message across in order to promote their agenda. Why would a random tech company be odd from people funding the murderer of grandmas and their entire families in their homes execution style?
The UK called in the ambassador from Iran this week because they were calling for Iranian expats in the UK to give up their lives for Iran (followed the next day by attacks on jews in the UK).
Bob has enough assets he can buy an additional rental property each year.
Tim has to save for 10 years in order to get a down payment on a house (and borrow half of it from mom and dad).
Tim rents from Bob.
Tim has to compete with Bob when it comes time to purchase his home.
It is easier for Bob to acquire a house, and during the time Tim has saved, Bob has been able to add 10 homes to his portfolio.
Wealth consolidates more wealth at the top over time. The more consolidated, the more the velocity of consolidation speeds up (The point we are at) via not only how wealth/assets work, but also as Bob has more and more power/influence and the benefit grows of ensuring the system is in his favor he starts to exert more political influence. An orthodontist with two homes isn't bothering with political influence other than zoning around those homes. His son that inherited multiple homes and now rents out 50 is going to every government meeting related to renting in the town, taking the country planner to lunch, knows the council members on a first name basis, and exerts much more political power than his father. As wealth accrues, the ability/desire/benefit for manipulating/abusing power grows almost exponentially.
It's not the early 2000s where just messing around and wasting time on this stuff is cool in itself. None of that time wasted turned into much long term apps that stuck with me. Maybe a banking app and a trail running app.
I ruined multiple dinners with timers that didn't work (with a time/labor cost).
I had to get out of bed in the freezing to turn the lights out. It's easy to hit the lights when I go to bed but annoying having the tool fail and getting back out.
Music stuff didn't work well because I used Youtube Music not Spotify.
Those were my 3 use cases for Google voice, and it failed them all enough I just stopped using it all together. Who cares if it works today if in another month they just change something and break it again? They've shown it's not a tool to use for tool things, it's a 'gee wow' thing. I don't need to be impressed. I need not burnt food.
How does flock get around this? It can't be an agent of the state AND be private and exempts from 4th amendment/all constitutional requirements?
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-unde...
Solari: No sir, unless he was for some reason acting on behalf of the government or had been asked by a government agent to do that. Unless that were the case then if that person was acting in his own private capacity as a UPS or FedEx employee then he would not be a government agent for 4th Amendment purposes.
Miller: Can private parties ever trigger the 4th Amendment?
Solari: Yes, as we discussed, if a private party were to be acting at the behest of the government -- if a government agent were to ask that FedEx person to open up a package and look inside, or to ask someone’s girlfriend to go through their things looking for evidence to turn over to the police, then that would be government activity. That would be the actions of a government agent because government agents can’t ask private parties to do something they themselves couldn’t do under the 4th Amendment, so in that type of instance it would be extended to that private party.
reply