License plate reader searches should require a warrant

Post by macintux » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 9:01 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #277

thewebguyd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we treat these cameras like they can do only one thing? Because its useful messaging to disarm the populace. "License plate reader" sounds less alarming than "Internet connected camera" or "Mass surveillance device." Public attitudes vary around a "license plate reader" but will be more uniformly opposed to "Widespread, automated government mass surveillance tracking your every move via camera in real time"

I'm holding a more powerful surveillance device than an Internet connected pole cam which we normally term a "smartphone". Its ability to spy on folks is widely known and almost no one seems to care enough to change their behavior. You'd be surprised what people will or won't care about. Once Trump is out of office, the folks currently obsessed with privacy will move on to the next thing...

Post by sandworm101 » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #301

malwrar wrote: post #2

It frustrates me when people call them license plate readers. I guess you need to call them something, but they are general-purpose internet connected cameras. They will do whatever their firmware tells them to do, and could be reprogrammed at any time by anyone with access. No one expected doorbell cameras to join a mass surveillance network, but later the manufacturers added that feature. Why do we treat these came…

Don't know if it's true (cuz lazy), but I recently read that they will start tracking phone signals an linking them to plates.

Post by malwrar » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #300

malwrar wrote: post #2

It frustrates me when people call them license plate readers. I guess you need to call them something, but they are general-purpose internet connected cameras. They will do whatever their firmware tells them to do, and could be reprogrammed at any time by anyone with access. No one expected doorbell cameras to join a mass surveillance network, but later the manufacturers added that feature. Why do we treat these came…

> No one expected doorbell cameras to join a mass surveillance network, but later the manufacturers added that feature. Plenty of people did? That was obviously one of the end goals for cloud connected devices pushing recordings to a remote side for processing and storage. Especially when stuff like facial recognition was implemented server side. I would be highly surprised if this was not pitched in the first intern…

Post by 01100011 » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 9:28 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #311

01100011 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm holding a more powerful surveillance device than an Internet connected pole cam which we normally term a "smartphone". Its ability to spy on folks is widely known and almost no one seems to care enough to change their behavior. You'd be surprised what people will or won't care about. Once Trump is out of office, the folks currently obsessed with privacy will move on to the next thing...

Were all the smartphones in the country constantly recording video to a central location for surveillance purposes, you’d have a point.

Post by dghlsakjg » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

LPisGood wrote: post #72

WarmWash wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, now rigidly define scale...

You don’t need to do that, actually. The legal system in the United States is highly capable of sussing out descriptions like “undue or unreasonable”.