4 ms·

Just 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 pla

by wmf 5mo ago

Just 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 ago
You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.
- wl 5mo ago
  It’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 ago
    How do you know individuals aren't running ALPR networks?
    - fragmede 5mo ago
      Most 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 ago
  You can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- MaKey 5mo ago
  You 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 ago
    It's actually a very cool law. You can see people expressing themselves more freely because of rules like this.
- pigeons 5mo ago
  You can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation.
- ipaddr 5mo ago
  You can ban pictures with certain content.
  - mothballed 5mo ago
    There 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 ago
  You can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction.
- pkaeding 5mo ago
  NH 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 ago
  You can ban mass surveillance.
- saguntum 5mo ago
  You 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 ago
  Username checks out.
coliveira 5mo ago
It is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data!
- wmf 5mo ago
  I would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true.
archontes 5mo ago
The 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.

by wmf 5mo ago

baby_souffle 5mo ago

You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.

wl 5mo ago
It’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 ago
  How do you know individuals aren't running ALPR networks?
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    Most 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 ago
You can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
MaKey 5mo ago
You 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 ago
  It's actually a very cool law. You can see people expressing themselves more freely because of rules like this.
pigeons 5mo ago
You can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation.
ipaddr 5mo ago
You can ban pictures with certain content.
- mothballed 5mo ago
  There 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 ago
You can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction.
pkaeding 5mo ago
NH 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 ago
You can ban mass surveillance.
saguntum 5mo ago
You 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 ago
Username checks out.

coliveira 5mo ago

It is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data!

wmf 5mo ago
I would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true.

archontes 5mo ago

The 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.