4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by Noaidi 11mo ago

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.