I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.”
The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.
> In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press?
Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others?
This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting it or sharing it publicly. Both can be true simultaneously.
Furthermore, no relevant court has found these to be "searches" or that they are "unreasonable."
Your "freedom from [government] searches" doesn't somehow make my Ring doorbell illegal.
There’s obviously a line somewhere though, right? Like if that same company put a camera in a bathroom stall?
So on one extreme with have CCTV parking lot cams, on the other we have bathroom stalls. It seems like we could find where spy cameras that exist solely to break citizens rights to privacy land on the spectrum and write laws around that.
There are two separate issues here: the government itself being restricted, and the right of the people to collect and disseminate information (in this case, information that is quite arguably in the public interest.)
The government can certainly be limited by statute (police may be statutorily required to obtain a warrant to use aggregated ALPR data or may be barred from using it entirely), and may already be limited by existing case law - the relevant courts have not yet decided.
Limiting Home Depot from streaming a traffic cam or CCTV footage from the confines of their publicly-accessible property is no different than limiting a news crew who would choose to capture the same footage and share it with the world. This is very basic freedom of speech/press - especially when the information isn't being individualized to any one target (as a credit bureau might do.) Everyone is being collected and processed equally.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. - and have a look at the panel of Justices that ruled in consensus, even Sotomayor joined the still-existing majority on this matter. GP's proposed legislation almost certainly runs afoul of this fairly-recent decision.
> There’s obviously a line somewhere though
For the limitation of the government, the line is called "reasonable expectation of privacy." Any reasonable person would expect there to exist reasonable expectation to privacy in a bathroom stall, and the user of the stall has generally taken affirmative measures to ensure the same: they closed the door behind them, locked it.
You may be recorded, the things you are observed doing are admissible in court, etc. in places where you reasonably expect people to be able to observe you. Driving down a public, taxpayer-funded road is the quintessential example of "no reasonable expectation of privacy."
> A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere ~ John Roberts
I do get the separation from private companies and government. I'm not arguing that. But this ruling was specifically about using Cell data collected by a private company being used to violate the privacy rights of citizens.
I don't think a private company harvesting data from public spaces and then reselling it is loop-hole enough to say "press rights > privacy rights". And there's precedence from the SCOTUS to support my belief on that.
I have no opinion one way or the other on restrictions on government use - whether they be judicial or legislative. I only care that the rights of private individuals and companies be preserved.
Carpenter didn't stop these companies from collecting historic cell site data, selling it privately, or giving it to police with a warrant.
The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.