3 ms·

If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain vie

If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.

filup 4mo ago
>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles. I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  Why would it fall apart? The plain view doctrine holds that the police don't need a warrant to observe things in plain view. Like your car driving on the public roads. Privacy laws are generally about protecting what you do in private, not in public. In the US, anyone can film you in public, government or otherwise.
  - filup 4mo ago
    It hasn't been articulated in court. But what flock has essentially done is created a GPS system without satilites. See Jones vs USA. Sufficiently saturated ALPRs across the country give you the same capability of GPS. Without GPS.
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      Jones vs USA involved physically interacting with a person's vehicle. Furthermore, the device would track users even if they were on private property. By comparison Flock only operates in public, in places that are in plain view.

filup 4mo ago

>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles. I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.

Manuel_D 4mo ago
Why would it fall apart? The plain view doctrine holds that the police don't need a warrant to observe things in plain view. Like your car driving on the public roads. Privacy laws are generally about protecting what you do in private, not in public. In the US, anyone can film you in public, government or otherwise.
- filup 4mo ago
  It hasn't been articulated in court. But what flock has essentially done is created a GPS system without satilites. See Jones vs USA. Sufficiently saturated ALPRs across the country give you the same capability of GPS. Without GPS.
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    Jones vs USA involved physically interacting with a person's vehicle. Furthermore, the device would track users even if they were on private property. By comparison Flock only operates in public, in places that are in plain view.