upvote

points

by reenorap10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby wmf9 hours ago|
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.
reply
upvoteby themafia6 hours ago|
parent|
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.

reply
upvoteby coliveira5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data!
reply
upvoteby wmf3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true.
reply
upvoteby baby_souffle8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.
reply
upvoteby saguntum3 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.
reply
upvoteby wl7 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.
reply
upvoteby pkaeding6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
NH banned ALPRs, with some narrow exceptions.

https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm

reply
upvoteby analog316 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction.
reply
upvoteby MaKey7 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.
reply
upvoteby ihsw6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby pictureofabear7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon.
reply
upvoteby 6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby tintor6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can ban mass surveillance.
reply
upvoteby pigeons6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation.
reply
upvoteby ipaddr6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You can ban pictures with certain content.
reply
upvoteby mothballed6 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.

reply
upvoteby SilverElfin3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The government should not be allowed to violate civil rights by outsourcing the harm to private industry
reply
upvoteby leonidasrup1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
"The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties, such as banks and phone companies, generally have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

reply
upvoteby voakbasda2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The fact that has been a routine practice is egregious, but the bigger insult is the fact that this loophole has been known for quite some time. Yet, our legislators and judiciary have allowed the practices to continue. There’s nothing but foxes in the henhouse.
reply
upvoteby djkoolaide9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What's a Chinese firewall?
reply
upvoteby reenorap9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
oops I meant Chinese Wall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

reply
upvoteby singleshot_7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They’re called ethical walls now, for obvious reasons (although the room is still Chinese, for whatever distinction).
reply
upvoteby qotgalaxy3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> What's a Chinese firewall?

"The Great Firewall (GFW; simplified Chinese: 防火长城; traditional Chinese: 防火長城; pinyin: Fánghuǒ Chángchéng) is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically" [1].

(I don't think they mean a Chinese wall [2].)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Alternative_terms

reply
upvoteby 9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby tessierashpool6 hours ago|
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.

reply
upvoteby hdgvhicv9 hours ago|
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”
reply
upvoteby hedora4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The Swiss are, if anything, worse. They passed a mass surveillance law, it was challenged at referendum, and upheld with 70% of the vote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/switzerland-vo...

reply
upvoteby 8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply