3 ms·

Legislation guardrails around surveillance technology are a necessary component to defend against future corporate surveillance apparatus establishment and oper

Legislation guardrails around surveillance technology are a necessary component to defend against future corporate surveillance apparatus establishment and operation, as this surveillance could take many forms (video, audio, geolocation, RF signatures, etc). Flock and Axon today, whatever unsavory folks come along in the future. “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.” —- John Maynard Keynes Guardrails because we cannot trust the human.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
Gov. Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-fl... - August 28th, 2026 > The order came as The Texas Tribune was preparing to publish an investigation detailing how a state agency has devoted at least $30 million to building the state’s Flock surveillance network. Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-... - August 28th, 2026 Pennsylvania state senator planning bill to ban Flock, ALPR cameras - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482256 - August 2026 https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senator-planning-bill-191700709.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senato...
- CamperBob2 2mo ago
  Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. In this thread, two posts up: people who want more powerful governments claim that "capitalism" is to blame for this state of affairs.
15155 2mo ago
As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades? I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint.
- toomuchtodo 2mo ago
  I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.” The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.
  - 15155 2mo ago
    > the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck.
    - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
      > Good luck. Thanks!
    - xahrepap 2mo ago
      > In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others?
      - 15155 2mo ago
        This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting it or sharing it publicly. Both can be true simultaneously. Furthermore, no relevant court has found these to be "searches" or that they are "unreasonable." Your "freedom from [government] searches" doesn't somehow make my Ring doorbell illegal.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago

Gov. Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-fl... - August 28th, 2026 > The order came as The Texas Tribune was preparing to publish an investigation detailing how a state agency has devoted at least $30 million to building the state’s Flock surveillance network. Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-... - August 28th, 2026 Pennsylvania state senator planning bill to ban Flock, ALPR cameras - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482256 - August 2026 https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senator-planning-bill-191700709.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senato...

CamperBob2 2mo ago
Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. In this thread, two posts up: people who want more powerful governments claim that "capitalism" is to blame for this state of affairs.

15155 2mo ago

As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades? I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.” The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.
- 15155 2mo ago
  > the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck.
  - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
    > Good luck. Thanks!
  - xahrepap 2mo ago
    > In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others?
    - 15155 2mo ago
      This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting it or sharing it publicly. Both can be true simultaneously. Furthermore, no relevant court has found these to be "searches" or that they are "unreasonable." Your "freedom from [government] searches" doesn't somehow make my Ring doorbell illegal.