31–40 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ... In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
Because no one important cares and no one will do anything about it.
Because of the motivations and degrees of agency associated with under-regulated capitalism, derived data about vehicles and people will be stored indefinitely because it has value to be extracted, to be sold and leased, to the highest bidder, be it to data brokers, police agencies (as is the supposed mission), and intelligence agencies. They won't necessarily be US-based entities either. It will be used to form judgements, discriminate, make inferences, and accusations about people with limited or wrong "evidence" anytime between now, days, years, and who knows for how long in the distant future. No privacy and unknowable risks of misuse and abuse that manifest with use of new technology developed or "connections" made with new information at any time in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning.
Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking.
There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases.
Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
No need to outlaw the device. If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning. Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking. There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases. Flock camera…
I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ... In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
You never worked for a startup where the CEO demanded administrator rights to everything just because he's CEO?
