This is totally disingenuous.

You are selling tools that have zero upside and a lot of downsides and that are used for structural violation of the privacy of citizens. Don't hide behind that you're trying to help people stay safe, that is not what you are doing and if you believe that you can take credit for the upsides then you really should take responsibility for the downsides.

▲

aerostable_slug 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Zero upside? LOL, no.

I'm looking for convincing decoy ALPR cameras because I don't think my HOA will go for a real setup, and I've got concerns over the product's security. I want the appearance of surveillance if I can't get the real thing. Being on a Flock/ALPR tracking app/site would be a huge win.

There is no benefit to signaling one's virtue in this scenario. It's like having a sign in your yard that says "Proudly Gun-Free Household".

	▲	queenkjuul 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My neighborhood is very safe and we have no such cameras. What problem are you trying to solve and why do you think cameras are the only solution?

▲

CamperBob2 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem isn't zero upside, as other commenters have pointed out. The cameras have legitimate, lawful, and useful purposes. You will not gain any traction with the public or with lawmakers as long as your arguments ignore that reality.

The problem is that the downside is unbounded.

We clearly don't have the control over our governments, in either direction or degree, that would be needed to ensure that the unbounded downside of ubiquitous networked cameras won't manifest itself.

	▲	jacquesm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What's the upside then, since it is so clear to you? Show me the stats on how these cameras actually reduced crime instead. Because to me they only show a possible decrease in one form of crime and a guaranteed increase in another.