5 ms·

1. I highly doubt the adversarial image generated by Jordan actually works in practice, especially since it needs to be fined tuned for a specific model, not to

by gruez 11mo ago

1. I highly doubt the adversarial image generated by Jordan actually works in practice, especially since it needs to be fined tuned for a specific model, not to mention that different angles/noise will probably break it even more 2. Louis tries to defend whatever Ben's doing by saying that it's basically like random specks of mud or bird shit, but he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing. Having random specks on your license plate isn't going to send you to jail, but if it's obvious that you intentionally crafted the specks to defeat the ANPR, that's a whole different thing entirely, even if they vaguely look the same. 3. As much as I don't like ANPR networks or government surveillance, haven't courts consistently ruled that drivers have less rights (ie. "driving is a privilege, not a right")? For instance, the constitution guarantees free movement, but you need a drivers license to drive and police can ask for your license without probable cause. You also can't refuse a blood alcohol test while driving.

Noaidi 11mo ago
> but he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing. He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. > haven't courts consistently ruled that drivers have less rights This is not about the right to drive. This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE.
- try_the_bass 11mo ago
  > This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE. Except this part isn't true?
  - Noaidi 11mo ago
    Anyone, by that I mean anyone that matters, or a very large group of people that you should be afraid of to have this power. I mean, excuse my hyperbole, but is this not enough? Like an ex boyfriend: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article291059560.html https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105... Or the Feds: https://centralcurrent.org/federal-immigration-agents-accessed-syracuse-drivers-data-through-secret-flock-safety-deal/ https://centralcurrent.org/federal-immigration-agents-access... Or a cop anywhere: https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcemen... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-protesters-and-activists https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo... https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-flock-immigration-searches/ https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-flo...
    - try_the_bass 11mo ago
      Seems like you're more moving the goalposts away from your original, inaccurate, and highly sensational claim? Maybe don't make the blatantly false claim in the first place?
  - gunalx 11mo ago
    It was at least, because of shitty security practices.
  - sallveburrpi 11mo ago
    I think he didn’t mean that say “everyone” but rather “anyone who is some random person working for this private company or the cops or the government or whoever they inevitably sell this data to/gets access to the data when it inevitably leaks through some random unsecured s3 bucket”
    - try_the_bass 11mo ago
      If that's not what he meant, then maybe he shouldn't have said "anyone" twice? With the caps for emphasis, even.
  - rationalist 11mo ago
    The data is available by FOIA.
    - try_the_bass 11mo ago
      Is it? I thought only searches of the database were available that way? Like, the history of queries, not the raw data. I don't think FOIA requests can be used to run your own searches of these databases.
      - rationalist 11mo ago
        Submit a FOIA for a specific area and time, and you can get all of the raw data for that, then you can do your own searches. You generally cannot submit a FOIA for all of the data.
        try_the_bass 11mo ago
        I don't think this is true. Do you have some sources for this?
        reaperducer 11mo ago
        Journalists do this all the time. We used to get big 9-track reels of data where I worked.
        try_the_bass 11mo ago
        The reason I'm skeptical of this, in this particular case, is because the data here isn't actually owned by the police/government (I think?), it's owned by Flock. A department can search the data for given attributes, but I don't think they have the whole data set to provide as a response to a FOIA request in the first place.
        thunderfork 11mo ago
- IshKebab 11mo ago
  > The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. That's not the problem. The fact that intent is considered by the law is a good thing, because it allows you to use the defence "I didn't intend for the mud to obscure the number". Without that, the cops can just say "there is mud on your license plate" and you have no recourse.
  - Workaccount2 11mo ago
    Unfortunately you are responsible for making sure your plates are clearly visible while driving. Mud doesn't easily coat your plate to the point of obscurity, you either were driving in lots of heavy mud (clean off car before going back on public roads) or haven't cleaned accumulated mud off in a while (not adhering to making sure your car is road legal). Negligence will still get you in trouble.
    - IshKebab 11mo ago
      Yes, but it will usually get you into less trouble than if you did it deliberately. That's why almost every jurisdiction has a distinction between murder and manslaughter (and often first and second degree murder). There isn't just a "caused someone else to die" crime and everyone that does that gets exactly the same punishment.
- gruez 11mo ago
  >He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. Except in this case, it'll be pretty obvious that you used a carefully crafted pattern, because it's a custom printed license plate rather the state manufactured one. Moreover, of the list of plausible excuses capricious cops can use to arrest/ticket you, this is pretty near the bottom. Something vague like "speeding" or obstructing traffic (for driving at or below the speed limit, since most people speed) already exists, for instance. >This is not about the right to drive. This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE. My point is that the courts (and to some extent, the public) have generally accepted that you have less rights while driving, so it's going to be an uphill battle. This is in spite of the fact that I oppose ANPRs.
- nkrisc 11mo ago
  Driving is a privilege, not a right.
  - gleenn 11mo ago
    Same with flying they say. But how free are you if the government snaps its fingers and removes every reasonable mode of transportation unless you sacrifice your privacy? The cameras (which are 100% opt-out by the way, tell them NO) in airports are rammed down are throats as well. How am I supposed to privately move?
    - nkrisc 11mo ago
      Congress could fix that. It could even be enshrined in the constitution. Maybe we should vote for people who would do that.
ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
Around here, folks wipe off the paint from their license plates with paint thinner. The plate still has the number, but an ALPR won’t be able to read it. I’m told the reason is so that they don’t have to pay bridge tolls (which are quite high). It’s illegal, but I see cars with bare-metal license plates, all the time.
- collyw 11mo ago
  I have seen youtube videos saying that if you put some tape over your licence plates the cameras won't read them. I think it was tape to make a skateboard grip better.
- Interesco 11mo ago
  (Assuming this is NY) Worth noting that NY license plates had a defect that caused the paint to delaminate [1]. I am not surprised that people intentionally do it, but this delamination used to be extremely common. [1]: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/new-york-ends-contract-with-company-linked-to-peeling-license-plates.html https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/new-york-ends-contract...
  - reaperducer 11mo ago
    This happened in West Virginia. But according to the newspapers, it was because the prison inmates were peeing in the license plate paint. This was pre-public internet, so no link that I could find.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
    That makes sense. I suspect it gives cover for the ones that do it on purpose.
Spivak 11mo ago
If the plate is visible and clearly readable to a human but not readable by a machine has the law been violated? In my state there is no law that requires that my license plate be viewable by ALPRs so long as it's in plain view to a human observer. The software isn't a person and so I think there's a real question as to whether or not you can even say the license plate isn't visible to it because the software doesn't have eyes it can't observe anything, that's just our way of conceptualizing what it's doing. And I don't think this is theoretical because this idea that the machine isn't a person is argued by the state for why dragnet surveillance isn't a search until a human actually goes and looks at it.
- Terr_ 11mo ago
  > but not readable by a machine has the law been violated IANAL but I think that would be a violation, since it falls under the "detectability" of a "feature" being "recorded". > A person may not apply or attach [...] onto or around [...] which interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate or interferes with the ability to record any feature or detail on the license plate. A person who knowingly violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText
Terr_ 11mo ago
> he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing A bit of silver lining is that the law does require intent, which was a pleasant surprise since it reduces how easily a bad official could weaponize the law against an innocent person. > A person who knowingly violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree [0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText
- quesera 11mo ago
  > A person who knowingly violates Is there a legal specification of "knowingly" that requires intent? Or is "awareness" adequate? E.g. If you know (or would be reasonably expected to know) that your license plate was obscured by mud from your offroading adventures, does this verbiage apply to you?
  - Terr_ 11mo ago
    Hmmm, I suppose "intent" is ambiguous since it covers more than one of these tiers: 1. I didn't notice there was anything different. 2. I noticed, but I didn't cause it. 3. I decided to alter it for a innocent reason. 4. I decided to alter it for a guilty reason. You probably need a Florida lawyer for a high-certainty answer, but I suspect both 3 and 4 will be a violation. If it were only 4, then it'd be a bit too easy to evade: "Oh, gee golly officer, I didn't know, I was just following that instasnaptok trend of putting glitter on it to make it pretty. The law doesn't say I can't make it fabulous."
    - quesera 11mo ago
      I think you're right about 3 and 4. I would guess that 2 would also be adequate, and 1 would require a positive defense. I fear that there's enough ambiguity to hang any disfavored violator, though.
0xbadcafebee 11mo ago
Just because you're a driver doesn't mean you get less rights. It means you implicitly consent to the laws covering driving. One such law that (thankfully) still protects drivers? No searching and seizing items from a vehicle without probable cause. You have the right to privacy in your vehicle, with this caveat: they can't search for just any reason, and they're not allowed to search random people. It has to be a specific person, with probable cause of a specific crime. It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car to track your movements without a signed search warrant. But it's legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do the same thing with no warrant? Bullshit. Recording every single license plate and its movements in perpetuity constitutes a search of random people with no cause. Searching for your specific movements constitutes a search, and therefore must require probable cause or a warrant. But the law doesn't protect us from this yet, because it's relatively new. When new technology comes out that current laws don't cover, the police abuse it. It's up to us to demand the laws be updated to protect us from this abuse.
- gruez 11mo ago
  >It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car to track your movements without a signed search warrant. But it's legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do the same thing with no warrant? Bullshit. It's not any "bullshit" then the fact that police don't need a warrant to follow you. It might be tempting to report with some variant of the "2nd amendment was only intended for muskets" argument, pointing out that the founding fathers never imagined a cop at every street corner, but then you have to deal with all the associated implications. For instance, does that mean first amendment protections don't extend to the internet?
- LorenPechtel 11mo ago
  No. The law doesn't prohibit it because it's simply automated gathering of information they could gather anyway. It becomes illegal when the police use technology to bypass barriers (for example, seeing your weed from a drone), but not when they simply use technology to automate handling with what they can see.
  - 11mo ago
kawfey 11mo ago
>he doesn't seem to realize intent is a thing at 2m9s [0], >theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane? Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states: >A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner. The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right. I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place. [0] https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/Filed/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/File...

by gruez 11mo ago

Noaidi 11mo ago

> but he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing. He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. > haven't courts consistently ruled that drivers have less rights This is not about the right to drive. This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE.

try_the_bass 11mo ago
> This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE. Except this part isn't true?
- Noaidi 11mo ago
  Anyone, by that I mean anyone that matters, or a very large group of people that you should be afraid of to have this power. I mean, excuse my hyperbole, but is this not enough? Like an ex boyfriend: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article291059560.html https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105... Or the Feds: https://centralcurrent.org/federal-immigration-agents-accessed-syracuse-drivers-data-through-secret-flock-safety-deal/ https://centralcurrent.org/federal-immigration-agents-access... Or a cop anywhere: https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/ https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcemen... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-protesters-and-activists https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo... https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-flock-immigration-searches/ https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-flo...
  - try_the_bass 11mo ago
    Seems like you're more moving the goalposts away from your original, inaccurate, and highly sensational claim? Maybe don't make the blatantly false claim in the first place?
- gunalx 11mo ago
  It was at least, because of shitty security practices.
- sallveburrpi 11mo ago
  I think he didn’t mean that say “everyone” but rather “anyone who is some random person working for this private company or the cops or the government or whoever they inevitably sell this data to/gets access to the data when it inevitably leaks through some random unsecured s3 bucket”
  - try_the_bass 11mo ago
    If that's not what he meant, then maybe he shouldn't have said "anyone" twice? With the caps for emphasis, even.
- rationalist 11mo ago
  The data is available by FOIA.
  - try_the_bass 11mo ago
    Is it? I thought only searches of the database were available that way? Like, the history of queries, not the raw data. I don't think FOIA requests can be used to run your own searches of these databases.
    - rationalist 11mo ago
      Submit a FOIA for a specific area and time, and you can get all of the raw data for that, then you can do your own searches. You generally cannot submit a FOIA for all of the data.
      - try_the_bass 11mo ago
        I don't think this is true. Do you have some sources for this?
        reaperducer 11mo ago
        Journalists do this all the time. We used to get big 9-track reels of data where I worked.
        try_the_bass 11mo ago
        The reason I'm skeptical of this, in this particular case, is because the data here isn't actually owned by the police/government (I think?), it's owned by Flock. A department can search the data for given attributes, but I don't think they have the whole data set to provide as a response to a FOIA request in the first place.
        thunderfork 11mo ago
IshKebab 11mo ago
> The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. That's not the problem. The fact that intent is considered by the law is a good thing, because it allows you to use the defence "I didn't intend for the mud to obscure the number". Without that, the cops can just say "there is mud on your license plate" and you have no recourse.
- Workaccount2 11mo ago
  Unfortunately you are responsible for making sure your plates are clearly visible while driving. Mud doesn't easily coat your plate to the point of obscurity, you either were driving in lots of heavy mud (clean off car before going back on public roads) or haven't cleaned accumulated mud off in a while (not adhering to making sure your car is road legal). Negligence will still get you in trouble.
  - IshKebab 11mo ago
    Yes, but it will usually get you into less trouble than if you did it deliberately. That's why almost every jurisdiction has a distinction between murder and manslaughter (and often first and second degree murder). There isn't just a "caused someone else to die" crime and everyone that does that gets exactly the same punishment.
gruez 11mo ago
>He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you over. Except in this case, it'll be pretty obvious that you used a carefully crafted pattern, because it's a custom printed license plate rather the state manufactured one. Moreover, of the list of plausible excuses capricious cops can use to arrest/ticket you, this is pretty near the bottom. Something vague like "speeding" or obstructing traffic (for driving at or below the speed limit, since most people speed) already exists, for instance. >This is not about the right to drive. This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE. My point is that the courts (and to some extent, the public) have generally accepted that you have less rights while driving, so it's going to be an uphill battle. This is in spite of the fact that I oppose ANPRs.
nkrisc 11mo ago
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
- gleenn 11mo ago
  Same with flying they say. But how free are you if the government snaps its fingers and removes every reasonable mode of transportation unless you sacrifice your privacy? The cameras (which are 100% opt-out by the way, tell them NO) in airports are rammed down are throats as well. How am I supposed to privately move?
  - nkrisc 11mo ago
    Congress could fix that. It could even be enshrined in the constitution. Maybe we should vote for people who would do that.

ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago

Around here, folks wipe off the paint from their license plates with paint thinner. The plate still has the number, but an ALPR won’t be able to read it. I’m told the reason is so that they don’t have to pay bridge tolls (which are quite high). It’s illegal, but I see cars with bare-metal license plates, all the time.

collyw 11mo ago
I have seen youtube videos saying that if you put some tape over your licence plates the cameras won't read them. I think it was tape to make a skateboard grip better.
Interesco 11mo ago
(Assuming this is NY) Worth noting that NY license plates had a defect that caused the paint to delaminate [1]. I am not surprised that people intentionally do it, but this delamination used to be extremely common. [1]: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/new-york-ends-contract-with-company-linked-to-peeling-license-plates.html https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/new-york-ends-contract...
- reaperducer 11mo ago
  This happened in West Virginia. But according to the newspapers, it was because the prison inmates were peeing in the license plate paint. This was pre-public internet, so no link that I could find.
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
  That makes sense. I suspect it gives cover for the ones that do it on purpose.

Spivak 11mo ago

If the plate is visible and clearly readable to a human but not readable by a machine has the law been violated? In my state there is no law that requires that my license plate be viewable by ALPRs so long as it's in plain view to a human observer. The software isn't a person and so I think there's a real question as to whether or not you can even say the license plate isn't visible to it because the software doesn't have eyes it can't observe anything, that's just our way of conceptualizing what it's doing. And I don't think this is theoretical because this idea that the machine isn't a person is argued by the state for why dragnet surveillance isn't a search until a human actually goes and looks at it.

Terr_ 11mo ago
> but not readable by a machine has the law been violated IANAL but I think that would be a violation, since it falls under the "detectability" of a "feature" being "recorded". > A person may not apply or attach [...] onto or around [...] which interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate or interferes with the ability to record any feature or detail on the license plate. A person who knowingly violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText

Terr_ 11mo ago

> he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing A bit of silver lining is that the law does require intent, which was a pleasant surprise since it reduces how easily a bad official could weaponize the law against an innocent person. > A person who knowingly violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree [0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText

quesera 11mo ago
> A person who knowingly violates Is there a legal specification of "knowingly" that requires intent? Or is "awareness" adequate? E.g. If you know (or would be reasonably expected to know) that your license plate was obscured by mud from your offroading adventures, does this verbiage apply to you?
- Terr_ 11mo ago
  Hmmm, I suppose "intent" is ambiguous since it covers more than one of these tiers: 1. I didn't notice there was anything different. 2. I noticed, but I didn't cause it. 3. I decided to alter it for a innocent reason. 4. I decided to alter it for a guilty reason. You probably need a Florida lawyer for a high-certainty answer, but I suspect both 3 and 4 will be a violation. If it were only 4, then it'd be a bit too easy to evade: "Oh, gee golly officer, I didn't know, I was just following that instasnaptok trend of putting glitter on it to make it pretty. The law doesn't say I can't make it fabulous."
  - quesera 11mo ago
    I think you're right about 3 and 4. I would guess that 2 would also be adequate, and 1 would require a positive defense. I fear that there's enough ambiguity to hang any disfavored violator, though.

0xbadcafebee 11mo ago

Just because you're a driver doesn't mean you get less rights. It means you implicitly consent to the laws covering driving. One such law that (thankfully) still protects drivers? No searching and seizing items from a vehicle without probable cause. You have the right to privacy in your vehicle, with this caveat: they can't search for just any reason, and they're not allowed to search random people. It has to be a specific person, with probable cause of a specific crime. It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car to track your movements without a signed search warrant. But it's legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do the same thing with no warrant? Bullshit. Recording every single license plate and its movements in perpetuity constitutes a search of random people with no cause. Searching for your specific movements constitutes a search, and therefore must require probable cause or a warrant. But the law doesn't protect us from this yet, because it's relatively new. When new technology comes out that current laws don't cover, the police abuse it. It's up to us to demand the laws be updated to protect us from this abuse.

gruez 11mo ago
>It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car to track your movements without a signed search warrant. But it's legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do the same thing with no warrant? Bullshit. It's not any "bullshit" then the fact that police don't need a warrant to follow you. It might be tempting to report with some variant of the "2nd amendment was only intended for muskets" argument, pointing out that the founding fathers never imagined a cop at every street corner, but then you have to deal with all the associated implications. For instance, does that mean first amendment protections don't extend to the internet?
LorenPechtel 11mo ago
No. The law doesn't prohibit it because it's simply automated gathering of information they could gather anyway. It becomes illegal when the police use technology to bypass barriers (for example, seeing your weed from a drone), but not when they simply use technology to automate handling with what they can see.
- 11mo ago

kawfey 11mo ago

>he doesn't seem to realize intent is a thing at 2m9s [0], >theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane? Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states: >A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner. The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right. I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place. [0] https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/Filed/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/File...