> To me this feels like an entirely different argument than the "expectation of privacy" one, and I still do not really find it persuasive. If nothing else, we

> To me this feels like an entirely different argument than the "expectation of privacy" one, and I still do not really find it persuasive. If nothing else, we've at least understood where we disagree! I don't think it's reasonable to consider a lack of privacy in one space without also considering the possibility of refuge in another space. That's not to say that loss of privacy in the public space is automatically acceptable, but it feels qualitatively different to loss of privacy in the defended space. Ubiquitous ANPR doesn't invoke feelings of paranoia in me, at all. Cameras and microphones in my house (if monitored by the state) certainly would. Ubiquitous ANPR in public does encourage self-regulation, in that other people feel more required to follow public-good laws like maintaining motor insurance with it in place. As mentioned above, I'm not convinced that's a net negative. > Please note that the panopticon concept was also planned to be used in schools, hospitals, and other locations. I didn't know this, but after doing a little more research then yes, I concede that you're quite correct. The term was used contemporaneously in settings other than prisons, and in fact the original use of the term probably owed more to other settings [1]. [1] https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1353164/2/014%20Steadman%202012.pdf https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1353164/2/014%20Steadm...