Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
In part 2 of our interview with Stevie Glaberson, Director of Research & Advocacy for the Center on Privacy & Technology. Stevie shares with BJ what the Chattery Supreme Court decision leaves unresolved—specifically, whether warrant requirements will actually limit police power in practice. We then talk about the Flock cameras at Woodbury Common—a major tourist hub in Orange County where private security cameras feed footage to local police without clear policies on who else accesses it. Finally, we talk how meaningful change comes through community organizing and state action.
Creators and Guests
Host
Rosie Tran
Rosie Tran is one of the fastest rising stars in the entertainment business! Originally from New Orleans, Louisiana, she moved to Hollywood to pursue her career as a professional entertainer. The stand up comedian, writer, podcast personality, and actress has toured internationally, at comedy clubs, colleges, and overseas for the USO in Europe and the Middle East.
Editor
Andrew
I am the Editor of all things on the Stupid Sexy Privacy Podcast.
What is Stupid Sexy Privacy?
Stupid Sexy Privacy is a miniseries about how to protect yourself from fascists and weirdos. Your host is comedian Rosie Tran, and the show is written by information privacy expert B.J. Mendelson. Every episode is sponsored by our friends at DuckDuckGo. Tune in every Thursday night —or Friday morning if you're nasty — at 12 am EST to catch the next episode.
00:00
Here's three reasons why you should switch from Chrome to the free DuckDuckGo browser. One, it's designed for data protection, not data collection. If you use Google Search or Chrome, your personal info is probably exposed. Your searches, email, location, even financial or medical data. The list goes on and on. The free DuckDuckGo browser helps you protect your personal info from hackers, scammers, and data-hungry companies. Two, the built-in search engine is like Google.
00:30
but it never tracks your searches. And it has ad tracker and cookie blocking protection. Search and browse with ease with fewer annoying ads and pop-ups. Three, the DuckDuckGo browser is free. We make money from privacy respecting ads, not by exploiting your data. Download the free DuckDuckGo browser today and see for yourself why it has thousands of five-star reviews. Visit DuckDuckGo.com or wherever you get your apps.
01:00
Welcome to another edition of Stupid Sexy Privacy, a podcast mini series sponsored by our friends at DuckDuckGo. I'm your host, Rosie Tran. You may have seen me on Rosie Tran Presents, which is now available on Amazon Prime. And I'm your co-producer, Andrew VanVooris. With us, as always, is Bonzo the Snow Monkey. I'm pretty sure that's not what a Japanese Macau sounds like. Oh, it's not. Not even close.
01:28
Let's hope there aren't any zoologists listening. Okay, I'm also pretty sure that's not what a snow monkey sounds like. Over the course of this mini-series, we're going to offer you short, actionable tips to protect your data, your privacy, and yourself from fascists and weirdos.
01:56
These tips were sourced by our fearless leader. He really hates when we call him that. DJ Mendelson. Episodes 1 through 33 were written a couple of years ago. But since a lot of that advice is still relevant, we thought it would be worth sharing again for those who missed it. And if you have heard these episodes before, you should know we've gone back and updated a bunch of them, even adding some brand new interviews and privacy tips along the way. That's right. So before we get into today's episode, make sure you visit StupidSexyPrivacy.com.
02:25
and subscribe to our newsletter. This way you can get updates on the show and be the first to know when new episodes are released in 2026. And if you sign up for the newsletter, you'll also get a free PDF and mp3 copy of BJ and Amanda King's new book, How to Protect Yourself from Bastions and Weirdos. All you have to do is visit StupidSexyPrivacy.com. StupidSexyPrivacy.com. That's what I just said. StupidSexyPrivacy.com.
02:54
I know, but repetition is key to success. You know what else is? What? Bonzo, eat your pablan like a good boy and pretty soon you'll grow up to be a big, strong, handsome man just like your daddy. Then you'll have Swedish pancake too. I'm really glad this show isn't on YouTube because they pull it down like immediately. I know. Google sucks. And on that note, let's get to today's privacy tip.
03:23
This week we're joined by Stevie Gleiberson, the Director of Research and Advocacy at the Center for Privacy and Technology. Stevie has spent her career fighting for access to justice and defending the rights of marginalized families from Georgetown Law's Civil Litigation Clinic to Public Justice to Brooklyn Defender Services. Her work focuses on surveillance and policing, which is exactly why we want to talk to her this week on Stupid Sexy Privacy.
03:55
Stevie, there's a lot going on that when we first did our recording, after we finished, you were like, oh wait, we got this other stuff. And then after you emailed me, I also came across this story involving the Texas Public Safety Department and software called FalconNet. So for people who maybe have already listened to our interview and want to hear more or want to hear us expand on it, I was hoping you might be able to help us pick up from where we left off. Yeah.
04:25
What I realized I wanted to make clear is that one of the most important things about Chattery is what the decision leaves unaddressed. So just as Kagan explained that the court in Chattery took up the question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of a geofence warrant, and that answering that question in full would mean deciding both whether the police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired the Google location data,
04:54
And if so, whether that search was reasonable. But the specific, the decision specifically only answers the first of those two questions, whether law enforcement conducted a search. And thankfully it decides that law enforcement does conduct a search when it gets location data from a third party like Google. And now that is a huge finding and very important, especially given the incredibly high stakes of what a contrary finding would mean. ah
05:21
But the second part of the question is really, think, where the rubber meets the road for real people. So let me break that down if we have a minute. Yeah, absolutely. So the fact that this kind of data access is a search means that the government will need a warrant in the future unless they can make a case for some warrant exception. But will that warrant requirement meaningfully limit police? The warrant requirement is one of the hallmarks of our Fourth Amendment structure.
05:48
It means that the police need to justify any search to a quote neutral and detached magistrate. ah Instead of letting the officer engaged in, in crime solving, be the sole judge of constitutionality. Basically it puts a neutral person between us and the police. But you know, when the police go to a magistrate to ask for them to sign off on a warrant, there's no representative of the defense in the room.
06:16
And what we see in practice is that warrants are often just rubber stamps with judges and magistrates just sort of letting the government do what they want. And if we focus in on Chattery, I mean, one thing to note is that the government did get a warrant in this case. They got the warrant, not because they thought the law required it, they say, but they got it because Google required it. Google said, we're not going to do this without a warrant. But I mean, what's perhaps more important for my point here is that the magistrate who was asked to approve of this search approved it.
06:46
So it's discussed in the papers that the magistrate in this case was not a lawyer, didn't have a law degree, and actually had just graduated from college only a couple of years earlier and had only been working as a magistrate for three months. But even the most educated and qualified judge, when presented with the police saying, you know, this robbery happened, it was really scary for everyone. We think we can find this guy if we look in the phone records. Like, is the, is a judge going to put the brakes on? ah
07:15
And Justice Jackson, in her concurring opinion, says she would go beyond the majority here and decide that the warrant issued in the Chattery case didn't satisfy the Fourth Amendment, specifically at steps two and three, where the police worked with Google outside of the purview, outside of the supervision of the magistrate, to narrow down their lists from that, like, I think we talked about 19 to nine to three list of accounts before ultimately unmasking those three. And her argument is basically,
07:44
it's dangerous to cut neutral review out of these processes. And that danger is on display here. But the neutral reviewer here first was like all too willing to cut himself out of the process. He you this didn't, it wasn't done to him. He signed the paper. He cut himself right out. But also can we imagine just how that would play out if the government were allowed to do each of these steps, but then had to return to a judge in between, you know,
08:10
If the government comes back and says, you know, we, found these 19 accounts we've reviewed and we think we, these nine have more information or we've reviewed these nine and we think these three have more information and here's our proof. Is a judge really going to stop them? So, I mean, I know the, the three step process doesn't work exactly this way, but if we think about what a neutral magistrate really, you know, what the warrant requirement really would mean, I don't know ah how much this is going to change things for people on the ground. And we're going to have to.
08:40
see what happens with the Chattery case below and what happens with this warrant in particular and what happens in other cases. Yeah, and I think that's a perfect segue to talk about ah where this case might play a role uh or may not. And so after we had initially talked, I came across this article about the Texas Department of Public Safety had spent just about $5 million on four Chevy Tahos. But in there, ah
09:07
They spent about 3.9 million on the stuff that went inside the Chevy Tahoe's. And one of those things is software called Falcon. And just basically the Chevy Tahoe's now are moving cell tower simulators. they are there now. You don't need to be standing by a cell tower to be giving out information. This Chevy Tahoe is just hoovering up information as it drives by, I guess, as part of a routine patrol or however they
09:36
that might be deployed. And I'm curious about the intersection of this new Chatree decision that just came down and news about products like this. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a really interesting question and it's one I don't think we know yet the complete answer to, but I think there's a, after Chatree, mean, after Carpenter and now after Chatree, I think there's a really strong argument that the police can't just put those out on the street and rove around and vacuum up data in that way.
10:07
There, to the extent phones connecting to a cell tower or phones connecting to Google and revealing location data in Chattery, sort of at the behest of the user, are determined to still, people still have an expectation of privacy of that data. The idea that the government could put a device out roaming around on the street and against the wishes of the people involved.
10:34
trick their phones into connecting and handing over data, I think it's an even stronger case. But um how this decision will play out for different technologies, all the different devices that the police have cooked up, police and corporations together have sort of cooked up to vacuum data up about us, I think is still an open question. um There's a lot of people who are really excited about the idea that
11:03
this case is going to mean sort of a sea change in how our location data and perhaps our data more broadly is treated. If you look at um the language that the decision relies on from prior Supreme Court cases, it says basically individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. And then also that even short term,
11:29
short snapshots of our movements could reveal something sensitive. And the decision also talks about how searches are not reasonable or unreasonable based on what they find. They're reasonable or unreasonable at the outset. So it doesn't matter what you actually find, it matters what you could find. uh And so I think there's a really strong argument that any kind of vacuuming up of data like that could be challenged. um
11:57
And I think we're, I wouldn't be surprised to see folks challenge it. And I was hoping you might be able to speak to this as well. um Let's say that ICE has, and we, I think this is a hypothetical, like I'm not stating that they have this sort of similar setup from what Texas has rolled out, but in an instance where it's, let's say specifically ICE or DHS, could they under the grounds of, you know, I think it's NSPM 7,
12:23
where allegedly Antifa is terrorist organization, could they use that as grounds to circumvent decisions like Chatri? I mean, I think the Fourth Amendment applies where it applies, and that's what think Chatri stands for. So there of course are exceptions to the warrant requirement for things like exigent circumstances and special needs searches. But I don't know that ICE has a good case.
12:53
for that in most of the activities that they're engaging in. Our co-producer, BJ Mendelson, and my co-host, Amanda King, just put out a new book that you really need to read. It's called How to Protect Yourself from Fascists and Weirdos. And this book delivers on what the title promises. If you're worried about the fascist takeover of America, but don't know how or where to start fighting back, this book is for you.
13:16
If you need practical tips on staying safe at a protest or filming law enforcement without getting indicted, we got you covered. And because life isn't all about the crisis of our time, BJ and Amanda even cover how to protect yourself offline for moments like when you realize your date is a total weirdo. The best part? This book is absolutely free. Just head on over to StupidSexyPrivacy.com and click or tap on the word book. Now let's get back to our interview already in progress.
13:44
Yeah, and so much of this is we're all waiting to see how it plays out. I ah don't think anyone necessarily knows what the United States will look at ah by the time this episode airs. So ah yeah, that brings me to another thing that I really wanted to talk to you about a few months ago. And then I fell off the map. And thank you for your patience. uh
14:09
And it's interesting because it just came up this morning. I was watching video of a Monroe Village board meeting and a gentleman who ran for assembly and he's a MAGA candidate. This is a MAGA guy, Republican, ah used time during public comment to talk about flock. And that really surprised me, like, you know, I because I've seen previously in discussions in my area where when people talking about flock, it's generally the far left weirdos like me who started trying to point out.
14:36
some of the issues, but I was really surprised today to see someone who was like outright MAGA also raise concerns about these Fock cameras. So I was hoping you could speak to us a little bit about what the issue is and why people should be concerned. Well, so I think just more broadly in answer to your question, privacy and some of these Fourth Amendment issues are actually places where we see the possibility of agreement across the political spectrum in ways we don't necessarily see otherwise.
15:07
Um, you know, if you look at some of the important privacy decisions and we often in our work, cause, um, we do a lot of work looking at how the department of Homeland security is collecting DNA from millions of people and adding it to our country's criminal policing database. And there's a decision in that case that we go back to Maryland versus King. And what we really have spent a lot of time parsing is just as Scalia's descent. So that case talked about, um, Maryland scheme for.
15:36
taking DNA from people who are arrested and charged with criminal offenses and said basically the way Maryland does it is okay. But Scalia was in this originalist bent, you know, goes back to the original meaning of the constitution and the reason why our country exists or one of the major reasons why our country exists is people's unhappiness, people's, I mean, that's not a strong enough word, people's rage over
16:05
the crown's use of something called general warrants, where they would basically deputize, you know, just like a uh street level bureaucrat, basically anybody in the eyes of the colonists to root around in their belongings to, you know, dragoon anyone they wanted to, to come along with them and force them to hand over documents and let them rifle through people's houses. And ah it's one of sort of the
16:33
The major issues at the founding is this kind of protection of our privacy and our dignity as a result. And so whether you are interested in these issues because you are liberal or leftist or, uh you know, progressive, or because you are conservative and originalist or libertarian, there's a lot of common ground there. And it's uh actually exciting for that reason that we might be able to find common ground in those ways.
17:02
Yeah, that's a great answer. Yeah, nailed it. Nothing more to add. That's a perfect answer. But about the... here, let me... I think I broke down the situation in the email, but just for people who were listening. So the situation we have in Orange County in particular is that we are home to Woodbury Common, which is one of North America's largest tourist attractions. I think it's the number one or number two outside of New York City. And... Yeah, did a lot of shopping there as a teenager.
17:30
So I guess most people, no matter who I speak to, seem to be aware of it or have been there. So it's that prominent. And so ah the interchange that it sits between the New York City throughway and Route 32. And so the situation is this. Along on Simon property, on their property footway common, there are multiple flock safety cameras that are gathering information from people coming off the throughway, people coming on 32.
17:57
That information is then fed to the Woodbury Police Department, who I've talked to in preparation for this story. And their stance is basically, know, we look at the video they send us, um but they don't really know, like, who else has access to that information, which seems to be a major problem when it comes to So I was hoping you might be able to speak a little bit to that issue uh because of the number of FLOC cameras that people in this area are driving by every day. Yeah.
18:26
I mean, I think it's really interesting to think about this issue now with Chattery in our pockets, because uh if I can just walk you through a little bit of the Supreme Court precedent that sort of led us to this point. There's two major things that I think are relevant when you're thinking about flock cameras, which is one that these are third party devices. So in your case, I think Simon is the owner of the camera and not the police. So.
18:52
This discussion that I think we've already had about the third party doctrine and how far it stretches or whether the third party doctrine is dead or just limited or whatever it might be, I think is relevant. And I don't think we know the answer with respect to something like flock in a privately owned camera yet, but it's interesting to think about now that we have Chattery. ah But the other thing is
19:17
the idea of whether we have an expectation of privacy in the movements of our vehicles on public thoroughfares. I think there's a bunch of people who are really excited about the language in Chattery, like I said, about our reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of our physical movements. People are excited about the idea of even a short-term view into our movements can reveal something really significant. But we also have to confront the idea that there is Supreme Court precedent in a uh
19:45
particular 1983 case called United States versus nots where the court has said that a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. And so how the courts will square these sort of two movements in the law, I don't think we know yet. um But we know that flock and flocks capabilities can really place people at risk. And so
20:13
I think if you go back and you read the Chattery decision with license plate readers in mind, it does start to sound a whole lot like there might be a basis to challenge them. So Justice Kagan writes things like the new found tracking capacity that, I mean, she's talking about Google location data, but let's say ALPRs, automated license plate readers, gives the police runs against everyone, not just those under investigation. That capacity travels back in time. You know, they're logging this stuff regardless of suspicion and can they go and rifle through it going back in time?
20:43
Um, she says police officers need not decide in advance as they do with, you know, GPS tracking devices. She's talking about another case called Jones where the police installed a GPS tracking device on someone's car. But police officers need not decide in advance who they want to follow. Instead, they can easily and cheaply with, she says, just the click of a button, reconstruct any person's movements retrospectively. And that's true of ALPRs too.
21:07
ah She says, in the past was unknowable by police suddenly becomes open to view presenting unimaginable privacy concerns, she says. So, you know, there's law cutting in both directions. um Again, I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges. um And I think there's a real basis to fight, but how it will turn out, I don't know. And so that's sort of my follow up to that. One question we've got that I...
21:35
don't know how to answer yet is exactly that. Like what, if you are a Woodbury resident, let's say, right? And it's the Woodbury Police Department that is getting provided this data, but it's coming from a private third party, you what do you do if anything? Well, you talk to a privacy, you talk to a lawyer. And I think you'd probably have to show harm. You'd have to show standing, but um you know, I'm not a litigator actively right now, so I'm not going to give it, I can't give it like a roadmap, but.
22:05
you know, talk to a lawyer and see what your options might be because after Chattery, there might be room. Yes. And I encourage people also to talk to their elected officials. ah Oh, absolutely. I mean, yes, where this stuff changes right now is not, you know, you don't look to the federal legislature necessarily to wipe this stuff away. Where this stuff changes is at the state and local level. And if there's an appetite, if there's an organized community who can fight against this, um
22:35
You can talk to your local elected officials. can get, um, you know, limit the police's ability to do X, Y, or Z. You can, um, get ordinances or state or local laws passed that limit the kind of surveillance even, uh, private companies can do that kind of thing. So there's lots that can be done. Um, sorry, my brain was stuck in what does Chattori mean for us territory? And I would add, you know, a lot of the, I don't want to throw anyone into the bus.
23:05
But I can say, and I am friendly to both the village mayor and uh town supervisor in Woodbury, and I can tell people that they were not aware. So I think there's also an educational component, ah especially with these smaller towns where they might not be even aware that this is going on ah or that flock is even a thing, right? that it's, yeah.
23:28
Yeah. And I mean, one thing to note about like the way flock gets used and some of these things get used is they, you know, they might have good policies in place, but we see police and ICE specifically being, you know, knowing that there are certain limits, you know, states, some states have put, um, limits around flock use, like for, you can only use it for specific types of investigations or whatnot.
23:52
But they can't stop what they don't know about. so like folks like ICE are being instructed to be as vague as possible in their descriptions when they go to do a search. so a professor here in DC, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, has a paper where he talks about the tyrant test and the idea that we need to think about any of these surveillance technologies from the lens of like, what could a tyrant do with this? What's the worst possible thing that how this could be weaponized against us? And so a policy might sound good on paper.
24:21
at first glance, but if you think about the ways it can be circumvented, ah I think that's something to keep in mind in your conversations around this. Absolutely. Virtue does not get passed down from one generation to the next, according to Thomas oh Mann. My last question for you, we've covered a lot of topics, but is there anything I didn't ask you that you think people should know? um I mean, I do think it's important to say like,
24:49
The law is really interesting and I really enjoy talking about it and it's really interesting to try to parse what's going on here. But the way this change really happens is by people coming together and talking, talking with each other and being in community and deciding what your, what the local values are and who do we want to be as people. And so to the extent folks who are listening to this are thinking about like, where do I go with this information? What do I do? And I think the answer is like turn to your community and see the
25:18
spaces where you're already hooked in and um the kinds of things that are feeling top of mind for your own community and how you can work together to create more space for you all to continue crafting community amongst yourselves. think that's beautifully said.
25:36
Today, I'd like to highlight a couple of features offered in DuckDuckGo's browser. Both are really important to know about as it relates to artificial intelligence. Now, as you know, DuckDuckGo's search engine does not track what you search for. It also offers helpful AI summaries, similar to what Google has, but here's the key difference. DuckDuckGo's AI summaries are more concise than what Google offers and are more private. I can't stress the last point enough.
26:01
because a lot of information we enter online is anything but. Now let's talk about AI chat models for a second, like chat GPT. Although we prefer you not use AI chat models, if you choose to do so, Duck.ai allows you to privately access them within the DuckDuckGo browser. DuckDuckGo anonymizes chats, so AI companies don't know who the queries are coming from. Your data is never used to train these chat models, and your conversation with these chat models are completely private.
26:30
Duck.ai costs you nothing to use and there's no account required to do so. And if you're like us at stupid sexy privacy and you're anti-AI, you can turn off both Duck.ai and the AI search summaries right within the browser. No harm, no foul. Oh, thanks for reminding me, Bonzo. I meant to include this sentence.
26:50
Do you think AI slop is ruining the internet? We do too. That's why DuckDuckGo's search engine also lets you filter AI images out of your search results. I know, those images you saw of Clint Eastwood were very upsetting. What? I didn't make those.
27:13
No I didn't! Andrew, can you please come get Bonzo? He's accusing me of creating synthetic media again, and that's really offensive.
27:25
Where was that? So, do you want to explore these AI tools without having them creep on you? Well, there's a browser designed for data protection, not data collection, and that's DuckDuckGo. Make sure you visit DuckDuckGo.com and check out today's show notes for a link to download the DuckDuckGo browser for your laptop and mobile device.
27:52
This episode of Stupid Sexy Privacy was recorded in Hollywood, California. It was written by B.J. Mendelsohn, produced by Andrew Van Voorst, and hosted by me, Rosie Tran. And of course, our program is sponsored by our friends DuckDuckGo. If you enjoy the show, I hope you'll take a moment to leave us a review on PocketCast, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you may be listening. This won't take more than two minutes of your time, and leaving us a review will help other people find it.
28:17
We have a crazy goal of helping 5 % of Americans get 1 % better at protecting themselves from fascists and weirdo. Your reviews can help us reach that goal, since leaving one makes our show easier to find. So please take a moment to leave us a review and I'll see you right back here next Thursday at midnight. After you watch Rosie Tran Presents on Amazon Prime, right? Bonzo, I wish that you'll have many more birthdays just like this one. With those you love and trust around you always to share your happiness.
28:47
And I wish that you'll get a chance very soon to prove that being loved and looked after like a human being has made you feel like a human being. And that if love can do that to you, then it ought to be able to make some other human beings... human beings.