2 ms·
Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device
by petcat 2mo ago
Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
- wiskinator 2mo agoshould also mandate that the license plate data that constitutes a 'hit' must be sent and stored at rest encrypted so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
- daeken 2mo agoEven better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo agoHuh https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/new-hampshire-traffic-camera-tickets/ https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/...
- DaSHacka 2mo agoNeat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong. All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.
- tclancy 2mo agoWell, I'll be damned, we finally did something smart in our state legislature. This definitely feels like a "The worst person you know made a good point", but that's me assuming Jason Osborne was in favor.