| ▲ | ck2 6 days ago |
| I don't get it 99% of the population is voluntarily carrying sophisticated tracking devices with self-reporting always on even if the signal is off it catches up later with SEVERAL layers of tracking not just your phone carrier but Google+Apple stores have your location as the apps are always on in the background even phone makers have their own tracking layer sometimes we know EVERY person that went to Epstein Island from their phone tracking and they didn't even have smartphones back then Flock is just another lazy layer/databroker |
|
| ▲ | sodality2 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can opt out of that, by not carrying a phone. I cannot opt out of public surveillance. Plus at least the gap between police -> tech companies typically adds some resistance, maybe a warrant, etc. With ALPR's police have immediate access without warrants to the nationwide network. It's far more ripe for abuse, yet is exactly what the police departments want; the only chance is local governance. |
|
| ▲ | rpjt 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is also no legal "reasonable expectation of privacy" for a license plate displayed on a public road. |
| |
| ▲ | kortex 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm fine with license plates being read and parsed. I'm fine with license plates being read, parsed, assessed for violation, and ticketed automatically, or cross-checked for amber alerts. That's literally my line of work. I want strict, strict guardrails on when and where that occurs. I want that information erased as soon as the context of the citation wraps up. I want every company/contractor in this space FOIA-able and held to as strict or stricter requirements than the government for transparency and corruption and other regulation. I don't want every timestamped/geostamped datapoint of every law abiding driver passing into any juncture hoovered into a data lake and tracked and easily queryable. That's (IMHO, IANAL, WTF, BBQ) a flagrant 4th amendment violation, and had the framers been able to conceive such a thing, they'd absolutely add a "and no dragnet surveilance" provision from day 1. If that seems hypocritical, my line starts with "has a crime occurred with decent likelihood?" "Lets collect everything and go snoopin for crimes" is beyond the pale. | |
| ▲ | klinquist 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | because it would be ridiculous for police to be able to track every car everywhere it goes! (10 years ago) Judges require warrants to put a GPS tracker on your car. Now that Flock cameras are so ubiquitous in many cities, this gives them access to the same data without a warrant. | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can reasonably expect that government agents don't follow me every time I leave the house. Legal basis for that belief or not, that's what most people expect. | |
| ▲ | mothballed 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd argue it's a 4A violation to require it to be displayed, though. It's a search of your registration 'papers' without RAS or PC of an offense. The fact that driving is a 'privilege' doesn't negate your rights to be secure in your papers, the police should have to have articulable suspicion that your car is unregistered or unlicensed before they can demand you to display your plate. | | |
| ▲ | kortex 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I dont personally agree but that is a really interesting argument I can kinda get behind. I guess the question is, what if you have footage of a crime being committed, and you would have a great lead if you only had a way to pair a vehicle with a person? | | |
| ▲ | sambaumann 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I also don't agree with the argument you replied to, but a counter-argument to your point is that we don't mandate individuals to wear name tags while in public |
|
| |
| ▲ | bonestamp2 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Legally, you're absolutely right. But as camera technology, data transmission, data storage, and automated data analysis progress, maybe it's also reasonable that privacy laws progress with the technology. I expect any police officer or other person to freely view my license plate as I drive around and I have no problem with that. But, I do not think it's reasonable for an automated system to systematically capture, store, and analyze all of my movements (or anyone else who is not suspected of a serious crime). If they suspect I have done something illegal, they should have to get a warrant and then the system can be triggered to start tracking me. I understand the desire for the data... sometimes I would like to know if my kids are following the rules at home, but I have a stronger conviction that I don't want my kids to grow up in a home where they feel like they are under constant surveillance. It's a gross feeling to be under constant surveillance, like you're living in a panopticon built for prisoners, which is an unfair side effect when you've done nothing wrong. Mass data surveillance of everyone is a totalitarian dystopian that I don't want to live in. |
|
|
| ▲ | graemep 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Google+Apple stores have your location as the apps are always on in the background Does that imply that Android settings lie about which apps have accessed location data? |
|
| ▲ | artifaxx 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tracking already feeling pervasive suffers from the cognitive bias of all or nothing thinking. A phone can be turned off or apps disabled far more easily than a network of surveillance cameras. There are degrees of surveillance and who has access to the data. We can push back. |
|
| ▲ | klinquist 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 1. Government having the data is different than private companies having the data 2. Consent 3. Accountability (e.g. A government agency needs a warrant to use your cell phone location data against you). |
|
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |