https://www.orbitkit.com/
https://www.gearlaunch.com/
https://www.voo.st/ (domain taken over by spammers, sorry)
http://www.similarity.com/
http://www.mobca.st/ (see https://techcrunch.com/2009/12/11/mobcast-geo-facebook-iphone/)
My most popular Quora answer, from my time as Kink.com's CTO:
Ethnicity is a social construct with some fuzzy boundaries, but I don't think anyone credible tries to claim that there is an "American Ethnicity". Usually when that term comes up it's from some racist overly proud that someone in their ancestry came over on the Mayflower.
Personally I think it's one of the strengths of this country that a first generation immigrant can come here and become an American. I don't think this is very common around the world.
The difference is that - excepting about 1.4% of the population - everyone here in the US is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants. Most of them long after the Mayflower sailed. However long it takes to create a new capital-E Ethnicity, it hasn't been long enough.
US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant because it trespasses on private property (the vehicle).
On the other hand, law enforcement can follow your car with a drone, helicopter, or other vehicle without a warrant. Are cameras more like a helicopter or more like a GPS tracker? The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet.
We probably all agree that a cellphone is closely associated with you and acts as a surrogate brain, so it gets treated as "you", at least as much as the _inside_ of your house or car.
You the right of free travel (with or without your phone). Automobiles are different. You can't take it everywhere; you can't park it everywhere; you can't move it about in secret (plates MUST be displayed, always).
You have an expectation of privacy for the inside of your car. But not the outside of your car. And even the inside... if it's visible from the windows, it's public.
This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B.
Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand.
As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different.
Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?
Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.
I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections.
Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.
This question seems preposterous on its face. If you walk around in public wearing a t-shirt with text on it, there's a reasonable expectation that people will read it. Specifically because it reflects light.
Fun fact for people whose scaling plan anticipates moving from Postgres to CRDB:
SELECT FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED works great for turning Postgres into a job queue. It does not work the same way on CRDB and you will likely have to rewrite those queries or use an external job queue.
Some of my pets:
Past companies I founded or cofounded:
My most popular Quora answer, from my time as Kink.com's CTO:
Want to go for a ride?
If you want to contact me, I'm jeff at the domain infohazard.org.