5 ms·

"The California Supreme Court ruling has significance beyond the ALPR case. It set a groundbreaking precedent that mass, indiscriminate data collection by the p

• duxup 7y ago
  Legally it doesn't make much sense to gather a ton of data and say "well something might be in there" and now nobody ever sees it. Pretty easy to just make big buckets of data nobody ever sees...
  • kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Easier is to let a third party make and manage the buckets of data and just use a warrant to get whatever you want.
    • acollins1331 7y ago
      Even easier to just not worry about getting a warrant.
      • redblacktree 7y ago
        Yeah, no need for a warrant when you can use a National Security Letter. They even come with built-in gag orders!
  • stjohnswarts 7y ago
    When you use the Constitution as a base line as to what it's logical for the government to do, then it's absolutely ridiculous to allow it. The only one who can argue otherwise are lawyers who represent cops/FBI/NSA whose sole purpose is to do the best job they can do, which obviously means no limits on their power. It's up to citizens to vote in law makers who actually represent our interests, the CIA/FBI/cops will only ever stick up for what is in their best interests. That swearing to protect the Constitution is really just a formality and not really applied to their daily activities.
    • windexh8er 7y ago
      They all take the oath to to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". It would be great if those agents of the government were held accountable to that oath, and if found guilty of otherwise face appropriate repercussions
      • wallace_f 7y ago
        Orwell wrote: >when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on
        • turk73 7y ago
          Orwell was a communist, though. It sort of confuses me what he meant by all that. Did he not understand that the kind of mistreatment of humanity was what he supported? I have read his memoirs and articles, I know he was a smart guy who took big chances in Spain and places. I just don't understand why such intelligent people support big, top-down, collectivist structures.
    • ratsmack 7y ago
      >It's up to citizens to vote in law makers who actually represent our interests... That just doesn't happen. And that is because the majority of voters do not know who they are voting for or what they really stand for. Voting in the US is more of a popularity contest between two teams, and the team with the most money and the most pleasing rhetoric (lies) will win.
      • edoo 7y ago
        You should read up on the 17th amendment. Our constitution has been hobbled a number of ways not originally intended.
• rjzzleep 7y ago
  I'm in Taiwan right now, and they use license plate readers to associate plates in parking lots with the parking ticket you receive to track the time you're in the mall. Sure you could use it as metadata for human analytics, but in this case I'm pretty certain its current use is for reducing queues and making checkin and checkout of parking lots more efficient. I feel like there is a fine line between pure technology advanced convenience and actually big brother style monitoring. In Taiwan if you drop trash where you shouldn't there's a chance that a camera will capture your movement, and they will try to find out who that person is. In China, I assume it's the same, but because of the way it's set up it gives you more of a prison feeling. At least that's what I felt like to me in Pudong, Shanghai. What I'm saying is how can we make sure that we get the convenience part without the pervasive big brother aspect. I'm sure there is a way and I believe that's what we should focus on as technically moves on. Similarly, the same applies to things such as medical records.
  • mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    It's not difficult to imagine such data being used for both benign and malevolent purposes.
    • rjzzleep 7y ago
      Yeah, but that's not the point. We know that this is the direction we're going. So the focus shouldn't be prohibition, but rather different ownership models to data and more sensible access to the data only to parts and the parties necessary. Germany for example while being "sort of" privacy aware is a prime example on how not to do it. They've been deadlocked in this for decades now and can't seem to find a way out. All the while expanding infringement of data access where it shouldn't be happening. They've been writing an own HIPAA for almost a decade now with no end in sight. They, did the same for the medical card spending a decade on discussions on privacy without actually addressing any of them. I give you another example. The access to medical laws in Germany while good in theory make everyone sign a verbatim access to your medical history in writing which you then have to retract in writing IF you can even remember all the places you've signed this form. It looks good on paper but if you ask me it's an absolute privacy disaster.