| ▲ | reenorap 8 hours ago |
| It's probably never going to happen because neither party cares about protecting Americans rights, but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government, or whoever else. I don't know if you could ever collect this data and never have foreign entities or NSA moles infiltrate into it by sending their agents to work at that company and steal the data whenever they want. But I can see how this would be good at fighting crime but also a completely and absolute destruction of privacy. We need politicians that actually care about Americans and their rights but no one who cares is dumb enough to want to go into politics, which is the sad thing. |
|
| ▲ | SilverElfin an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The government should not be allowed to violate civil rights by outsourcing the harm to private industry |
|
| ▲ | wmf 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just don't collect the data. If it's too dangerous for the government to have then private companies shouldn't have it either. The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement; if we decide as a society that we don't want to do it then just ban it completely. |
| |
| ▲ | coliveira 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data! | | |
| ▲ | wmf an hour ago | parent [-] | | I would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true. |
| |
| ▲ | themafia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement It was the repossession companies that deployed them first. The police, as a general rule, are about 10 years behind on technology almost everywhere, so when new stuff drops, it's actually profit driven industries that deploy it. Our company cut deals with several large business in the area, like malls, and we deployed the cameras at the entrances to their lots. If a car on the "hot list" pulled in, we'd get an alert, then dispatch a truck to go collect the vehicle. | |
| ▲ | baby_souffle 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software. | | |
| ▲ | saguntum an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You can ban the commercialization and mass scaling of the technology. Just because you can't prevent something at a small scale doesn't mean you can't prevent corporations and government agencies from doing it without exposing themselves to unacceptable legal risk. | |
| ▲ | pkaeding 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | NH banned ALPRs, with some narrow exceptions. https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm | |
| ▲ | wl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’d be hard to keep individuals from doing this. But individuals aren’t running networks of cameras. Companies are. Those companies probably couldn’t fly under the radar selling LPR data if the practice was banned. | |
| ▲ | analog31 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction. | |
| ▲ | MaKey 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can make it illegal to use private cameras for surveillance of public spaces. In Europe this is already the case. | | | |
| ▲ | tintor 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can ban mass surveillance. | |
| ▲ | pictureofabear 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon. | | | |
| ▲ | pigeons 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation. | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can ban pictures with certain content. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is little chance I could just post up cameras wherever my ex travels and note all the time she arrives and leaves at all intersections and get away with that without at least a restraining order ordering me to stop. What they are actually doing is stalking by method of a network of cameras deliberately installed to follow people from place to place. It isn't generalized observation in pursuit of speech, it arguably isn't even speech, but rather mass individualized stalking. Maybe 1A allows that but that doesn't seem to be the law on the books for anyone else trying to stalk people in such a way. Personally I don't have a huge problem with 1A being broad enough to including recording literally everything in public and meticulously cataloging and following everyone, but only if the rest of the amendments are read in the same broad and literal manner. Meaning I can own nukes, I don't have to display a plate, the 10th amendment would stop the feds from outlawing intrastate weed, etc. What it looks like what happens is the feds cherry pick interpretations of the bill of rights to trump up their powers and then give the least charitable interpretations to the plebs. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tessierashpool 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government technically we have one, the Fourth Amendment, but SCOTUS defanged it completely, years ago. |
|
| ▲ | djkoolaide 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What's a Chinese firewall? |
| |
|
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Only america can think there no harm in mass collection of data, and actively is against any attempts to limit it (gdpr for example) because it’s “anti growth” |
| |