You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.

saguntum 2 hours 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 5 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 5 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.

	▲	ihsw 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

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.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

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.