In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.

▲

kennywinker 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom.

Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?

Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.

▲

maerF0x0 9 hours ago | parent [-]

What freedom is being impinged? AFAIK we have no fundamental right to not being recorded in public, presuming it's not indecent.

And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere:

I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.

	▲	kennywinker 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> What freedom is being impinged? Freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment: Freedom of the press - by harassing or criminalizing journalists who seek to expose gov or politicians who do wrong. Freedom of assembly - license plate readers have been used to mass collect plates from people attending political rallies for mainstream candidates. Freedom of speech and petition - tracking and harassing people for political speech or peaceful protest. Under the second amendment: Right to keep and bear arms. See feds slurping up data on gun show attendees. Doing something that is a basic right should not land you in a gov crime database. Under the 4th: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Knowing where someone is at all times is an unreasonable search. And of course the supreme court has ruled that there is no basic right to privacy in the constitution, when they overturned roe v wade, but i strongly disagree with that ruling and believe it was not fair or consistent with the intent of the constitution.

▲

advisedwang 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.

We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

▲

maerF0x0 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers.

	▲	tavavex 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No. The recent decades has shown that there are no laws for a sufficiently motivated entity or government. They're just words on paper, a promise. You can't expect them to keep that promise indefinitely, especially when those incentives you speak of (profit for the companies, easy repressions and surveillance for the government) point in the opposite direction. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to not have the tools of repression to be available at a second's notice to them. We live in a world of power, not of laws, at least as far as the most powerful are concerned. Besides, I don't want them to have a right to track and correlate data about my location even if it's the best government ever that only ever uses this to solve the crimes that I agree are bad. No thanks.