Turns out »it’s on a public road« stops being a magic privacy waiver when police can reconstruct a month of your movements with a few clicks. Flock sold dragnet surveillance as a camera network, and a federal judge finally called it what it is: indiscriminate mass surveillance.
while you were concerned with deep state, turns out you should have been concerned with shallow state lol
That’s great, but the mass surveillance definition also fits Google, Meta, and so much of the internet.
The ALPR data is being collected and stored constantly. Does it only become mass surveillance if law enforcement searches it.? That is the next thing to consider IMO.
I think we need stronger legal protections against searching our data, even when we put it into the custody of others.
For example, I would like to have security cameras that record to the cloud, but all the big NVR providers will cough up data to law enforcement upon request. That means that a Ring/Nest camera is effectively a police camera.
But that’s bullshit, because the best place to store security camera storage is somewhere other than the property you are surveilling, but I still want my goddamned privacy at home!
So I can either run Chinese network security nightmare cameras whose operators are outside of my jurisdiction, or I can run standard RTSP to my own cloud VPS and hope that it’s harder for the police to get their hands on that footage since I am the NVR operator and can encrypt my footage at rest.
The VPS option I chose is also the most expensive option, and it wasn’t easy to set up.
What’d you choose?
We have a thing in the constitution about this. It’s called"unreasonable searches and seizures". But cops don’t care about that.
Jezz now all the pigs acab ate actually gonna do their jobs and leave the doughnuts alone poor dumb illiterate pricks
This is good news, and gotdamn I’ll take my wins where I can get 'em, but just to clarify, its a victory with caveats:
- A warrant or probable cause is enough to use ALPRs
- A subsequent Oklahoma legislative discussion over this matter did not put forth outlining repercussions for violating this new restriction.
- And likely most difficult of all, the 30-day history was what considered it a search. All Flock would need to do is decrease the history to a few days, which is still just as useful for most investigations, for it to not be considered a search. After writing this out, I learnt Flock already had plans to reduce to a 7-day window.
So again, this is a good thing despite these flaws. I’d rather have some limits than none at all, but keep pursuing this. The fight has always been about whether this tech should be allowed or not, not whether or not you need to look suspicious. I can’t help but feel that until a large case at the supreme court happens, our best route is still via legislative endeavors. While its scummy that politicians are only now addressing it when they’re around an election time, it’s still gaining traction nonetheless.
