the legal standard is based off of the idea that a police officer could easily sit in a fixed location and take down license plate numbers that pass by

that and you don't have any legitimate expectation of privacy while in public because you are in public

the really strange part is the folks that are angry about flock cameras are often the same people who are angry that folks like elon musk want the movements of the private jets to be non-public information

i can get around my community without worrying one bit about flock cameras surveilling me. the bike trails i use generally don't have cameras and even if they did i'm riding a fairly generic bike and wearing neutral and unmemorable clothing.

even with actual dragnet surveillance in NYC they couldn't track a dude on a bike effectively.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a police officer could easily sit in a fixed location and take down license plate numbers that pass by

Not on a busy road. And not while identifying the faces of the drivers.

	▲	Barbing 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nor the dents and identifying marks, effectively. Nor within a realistic budget (24/7 * average officer hourly rate * # of Flocks nationwide + time spent sharing with desired other jurisdictions + cost to analyze). Point driven in by fellow commenters this year: scale matters!

▲

nullc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The real privacy problem is the requirement to display plates... a problem that exists only because of the government's mandate to do so.

I think it breaks the 'its in public so its public' argument. The state requires you to display plates-- its its responsibility to complete the law: e.g. make possession of a third parties plate number a serious felony outside of limited circumstances.