Why do you think the government couldn’t collect this information themselves? ALPRs are legal, cameras covering a public roadway are legal, and the 4th amendment doesn’t extend to driving on a public roadway.

▲ smalltorch 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Could the government set up 80,000 cameras to spy on everyone? No, they are not aloud to create dragnets or conduct mass surveillance. They need warrants.

Thats the loophole that flock capitalized on.

▲ cj 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How many highways and bridges charge tolls via license plate reading cameras? A lot, it's legal, and I would be surprised if that data was used only for processing tolls.

▲ chaps 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's definitely not. For example, police in Illinois have warrantless access to ipass scans.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20645486-re_-externa...

  HB 4006 nullifies the entire purpose of obtaining Tollway information in an active investigation by requiring promptnotification to the subject of a search warrant and potential criminal actor. This information can be incredibly usefulin a multitude of criminal investigations, including homicides, kidnappings, and interstate trafficking of contraband.With this provision, law enforcement would not proceed with seeking a search warrant if it could jeopardize the abilityto apprehend the suspect, result in the destruction of evidence, or even worse result in harm to a victim.

  Additionally, the proposed bill forecloses the possibility of obtaining information about a person traveling through aTollway pursuant to a subpoena, including license plate information or photographs of the driver, where a knownsuspect may not be identified but the route of travel could be useful to generate leads. A warrant is not required toobtain this information. Placing such a requirement that creates greater protections beyond those required under theFourth Amendment creates an unnecessary limitation on law enforcement's ability to investigate crime. The currentrequirement to obtain a subpoena is sufficient to ensure that law enforcement has a documented investigative purposeand criminal predicate tied to Tollway information.

  Some case law background explaining why a warrant is not required for this type of Tollway information:

  "This court has not previously addressed in a published opinion the question of whether an individual has areasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate. In two unpublished decisions, however, this court has agreedwith the other circuits that have decided this issue by holding that no such privacy interest exists. The reasoning ofthese opinions, as well as that of the Supreme Court in related cases, leads us to agree that a motorist has noreasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment.No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purposeof a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to lawenforcement officials and others."

▲ dpoloncsak 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is no expectation of privacy in public. Look at NYC, the government most certainly has setup a network of cameras without a warrant. Flock cameras are all (to my knowledge) in public as well

Reference: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/06/scale-new-yor...

▲ chaps 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course they can and of course they do. It gets much more complicated when you consider that each state has different laws about records sharing.

And, lol, yes the 4th amendment extends to driving on a public roadway... roads aren't international waters. Probable cause and such are still important. I recognize what you're saying but -- details matter, dammit.

▲

alex43578 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Details do matter: extensive case law supports a very low standard for privacy in cars and searches on the roadway. Pat downs, being ordered out of the car, free air sniffs via drug dogs, DUI or immigration checkpoints, etc.

Furthermore, just being recorded on a public roadway doesn’t constitute a search or seizure.

The strongest evidence in support of your position is that Boston aerial surveillance case, which is frankly a stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching, and I’d like to see it or another case reach the Supreme Court for clarification.

▲

chaps 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You really sully your position when you call it a "stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching."

Again, details matter: how is it stupid.

▲

alex43578 3 hours ago | parent [-]

See the two paragraphs before? That lays out my position.

The courts have repeatedly upheld far more invasive searches and encroachments of vehicles, but now confusingly consider simply observing the outside of your vehicle to constitute an excessive search.

The Baltimore decision is stupid because it contradicts 50 years of case law over what constitutes a search and what degree of privacy you expect to have on a private roadway.

	▲	chaps 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No need for snark; I'm genuinely interested in your position. From my re-read and re-read, you've provided a conclusory statement without actually explaining the details. Is your definition of "stupid" anything that contradicts 50 years of case law? That seems.... tautologically limp.