Despite the references to recent cases like Carpenter, this isn’t a cogent legal analysis. These recent cases have been focused on the question as to whether law enforcement activity involving cameras, cell phone locations, etc. constitutes a “search” and therefore must satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the challenged cases, the Government didn’t obtain a warrant and the defense was trying to suppress the introduction of evidence.

But it says nothing as to what the Government can do when they do have a warrant. If they get a judge to sign one, provided the warrant meets the particularity requirement, they can go obtain what they need.

As far as Flock is concerned, it’s mainly a process thing. Right now they might be able to share their data with law enforcement without a warrant. If the law changes, the data will still be there, except henceforth, law enforcement will need to obtain a warrant before getting it. So there will be that safety mechanism, although security vulnerabilities could make it available to hackers.

The bigger question in my mind is “should such systems even exist in free states,” but as written, our Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid them.