4 ms·
It's probably never going to happen because neither party cares about protecting Americans rights, but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese f
by reenorap 5mo ago
It's probably never going to happen because neither party cares about protecting Americans rights, but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government, or whoever else.
I don't know if you could ever collect this data and never have foreign entities or NSA moles infiltrate into it by sending their agents to work at that company and steal the data whenever they want. But I can see how this would be good at fighting crime but also a completely and absolute destruction of privacy.
We need politicians that actually care about Americans and their rights but no one who cares is dumb enough to want to go into politics, which is the sad thing.
- wmf 5mo agoJust don't collect the data. If it's too dangerous for the government to have then private companies shouldn't have it either. The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement; if we decide as a society that we don't want to do it then just ban it completely.
- baby_souffle 5mo agoYou can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.
- wl 5mo agoIt’d be hard to keep individuals from doing this. But individuals aren’t running networks of cameras. Companies are. Those companies probably couldn’t fly under the radar selling LPR data if the practice was banned.
- tardedmeme 5mo agoHow do you know individuals aren't running ALPR networks?
- fragmede 5mo agoMost individuals I know only have access to a handful of places they could put ALPR devices. Their home, their work, a couple of really really close friends who trust them enough to let them setup a camera on their property. Individuals could pay people to host their cameras but then that starts looking like a business, so while it's theoretically possible for an individual to have a network of APLRs just for the fun of it, that just seems like weird enough hobby that, I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't think anyone is doing that.
- pictureofabear 5mo agoYou can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- MaKey 5mo agoYou can make it illegal to use private cameras for surveillance of public spaces. In Europe this is already the case.
- ihsw 5mo ago[dead]
- tardedmeme 5mo agoIt's actually a very cool law. You can see people expressing themselves more freely because of rules like this.
- pigeons 5mo agoYou can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation.
- ipaddr 5mo agoYou can ban pictures with certain content.
- mothballed 5mo agoThere is little chance I could just post up cameras wherever my ex travels and note all the time she arrives and leaves at all intersections and get away with that without at least a restraining order ordering me to stop. What they are actually doing is stalking by method of a network of cameras deliberately installed to follow people from place to place. It isn't generalized observation in pursuit of speech, it arguably isn't even speech, but rather mass individualized stalking. Maybe 1A allows that but that doesn't seem to be the law on the books for anyone else trying to stalk people in such a way. Personally I don't have a huge problem with 1A being broad enough to including recording literally everything in public and meticulously cataloging and following everyone, but only if the rest of the amendments are read in the same broad and literal manner. Meaning I can own nukes, I don't have to display a plate, the 10th amendment would stop the feds from outlawing intrastate weed, etc. What it looks like what happens is the feds cherry pick interpretations of the bill of rights to trump up their powers and then give the least charitable interpretations to the plebs.
- analog31 5mo agoYou can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction.
- pkaeding 5mo agoNH banned ALPRs, with some narrow exceptions. https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm
- tintor 5mo agoYou can ban mass surveillance.
- saguntum 5mo agoYou can ban the commercialization and mass scaling of the technology. Just because you can't prevent something at a small scale doesn't mean you can't prevent corporations and government agencies from doing it without exposing themselves to unacceptable legal risk.
- themafia 5mo ago> The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement It was the repossession companies that deployed them first. The police, as a general rule, are about 10 years behind on technology almost everywhere, so when new stuff drops, it's actually profit driven industries that deploy it. Our company cut deals with several large business in the area, like malls, and we deployed the cameras at the entrances to their lots. If a car on the "hot list" pulled in, we'd get an alert, then dispatch a truck to go collect the vehicle.
- salawat 5mo agoUsername checks out.
- coliveira 5mo agoIt is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data!
- wmf 5mo agoI would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true.
- archontes 5mo agoThe way it should work is that if a government can't do a thing, then they can't pay for the same thing. Remove the demand and the activity will dry up.
- hdgvhicv 5mo agoOnly america can think there no harm in mass collection of data, and actively is against any attempts to limit it (gdpr for example) because it’s “anti growth”
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- hedora 5mo agoThe Swiss are, if anything, worse. They passed a mass surveillance law, it was challenged at referendum, and upheld with 70% of the vote: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/switzerland-votes-in-favour-of-greater-surveillance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/switzerland-vo...
- hdgvhicv 5mo agoMaybe I should rephrase it Only America loves having unaccountable private companies collect data but hate it when the accountable government does.
- djkoolaide 5mo agoWhat's a Chinese firewall?
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> What's a Chinese firewall? "The Great Firewall (GFW; simplified Chinese: 防火长城; traditional Chinese: 防火長城; pinyin: Fánghuǒ Chángchéng) is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically" [1]. (I don't think they mean a Chinese wall [2].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Alternative_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Alternative_terms
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- reenorap 5mo agooops I meant Chinese Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall
- singleshot_ 5mo agoThey’re called ethical walls now, for obvious reasons (although the room is still Chinese, for whatever distinction).
- qotgalaxy 5mo agoNo they aren't.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- tessierashpool 5mo agobut we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government technically we have one, the Fourth Amendment, but SCOTUS defanged it completely, years ago.
- SilverElfin 5mo agoThe government should not be allowed to violate civil rights by outsourcing the harm to private industry
- voakbasda 5mo agoThe fact that has been a routine practice is egregious, but the bigger insult is the fact that this loophole has been known for quite some time. Yet, our legislators and judiciary have allowed the practices to continue. There’s nothing but foxes in the henhouse.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago"The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties, such as banks and phone companies, generally have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- frogperson 5mo agoAmericans (the majority anyway) are still far too comfortable to care about any of this. Unemployment would need to be like 50% before most people even stopped to think "hey, maybe I should pay attention and vote".