3 ms·

The headline is kind of sensationalist. There are networks of automated plate readers and they can be searched globally. It's pretty clear that any cop that use

The headline is kind of sensationalist. There are networks of automated plate readers and they can be searched globally. It's pretty clear that any cop that uses these systems to track down anyone is using 89000 cameras. I would be surprised if they limited their use to abortion.

redserk 1y ago
This is a bizarrely pedantic critique of the headline. “Action happened. A state used network of cameras outside of that state’s borders.” seems like a reasonable template to describe what happened.
nixpulvis 1y ago
Classic, tech is tech so what are laws argument.
isaacremuant 1y ago
I think it's important to do so people, maybe the ones that reply to you, can pretend there's a particular importance to it and not focus on the surveillance technique itself. It's a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" situation for many partisan people. They don't really care about massive surveillance or extremely concentrated power as long as it serves their interest. When it doesn't, the complain but rarely want to focus on the core of the problem.
haswell 1y ago
Look at it through this lens: the EFF is seeking to educate the public on the dangers of mass surveillance. The HN crowd is disproportionately aware of how such systems operate and their implications, while the public has little understanding of it. The headline summarizes the issue very succinctly. What is the issue? Installing massive networks of surveillance gear will eventually erode freedoms and impact people in ways that many people would disagree with. Regardless of how "standard" the described usage of the system might be, the fact remains that the mechanisms available to agencies now are pretty stunning in their scale and reach, and that much of the public is unaware, doesn't care because they don't know enough to care, or believes such a system would never be misused.

redserk 1y ago

This is a bizarrely pedantic critique of the headline. “Action happened. A state used network of cameras outside of that state’s borders.” seems like a reasonable template to describe what happened.

nixpulvis 1y ago

Classic, tech is tech so what are laws argument.

isaacremuant 1y ago

I think it's important to do so people, maybe the ones that reply to you, can pretend there's a particular importance to it and not focus on the surveillance technique itself. It's a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" situation for many partisan people. They don't really care about massive surveillance or extremely concentrated power as long as it serves their interest. When it doesn't, the complain but rarely want to focus on the core of the problem.

haswell 1y ago

Look at it through this lens: the EFF is seeking to educate the public on the dangers of mass surveillance. The HN crowd is disproportionately aware of how such systems operate and their implications, while the public has little understanding of it. The headline summarizes the issue very succinctly. What is the issue? Installing massive networks of surveillance gear will eventually erode freedoms and impact people in ways that many people would disagree with. Regardless of how "standard" the described usage of the system might be, the fact remains that the mechanisms available to agencies now are pretty stunning in their scale and reach, and that much of the public is unaware, doesn't care because they don't know enough to care, or believes such a system would never be misused.