The scope constitutes a novel level of invasive government surveillance. It is not just the recording, it is the massive collating and dissemination of these data. If you need a correlate, consider cell phone tracking rather than photography, which SCOTUS has ruled requires a warrant[1]:
>“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information. In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”
The lawsuit seems to be framing these as warrantless searches. But this is just recording of public spaces. How can it constitute a worthless search?
The scope constitutes a novel level of invasive government surveillance. It is not just the recording, it is the massive collating and dissemination of these data. If you need a correlate, consider cell phone tracking rather than photography, which SCOTUS has ruled requires a warrant[1]:
>“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information. In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”
1. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rules-poli...