remixedcat
Posts: 12 +5
Haha you think voting actually works I got a bridge to sell yah.
Politicians are selected not elected..
License plate cameras are scanning 20 billion vehicles a month, cities are starting to push back
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Politicians are selected not elected..
OortCloud
Posts: 2,242 +3,250
Big tech are turning the west (and especially the US) into such a dystopia. If only the government would implement some human-civil-rights policies rather than just looking to monetize everything for personal gain. Trump has privately made $2.2 billion dollars in just his first year back in the White House by grifting and bribing.
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
Unfortunately its not just about speeding tickets, its that the back end for Flocks cameras is so insecure and it is Unknown where Flock is sending the information from those cameras too, it could be law enforcement, it could also be being fed into an AI system that is now building a profile on your movements. That is the issue with these cameras, its not about people being "caught" its that these cameras specifically target license plates and can build a timeline even IF you arent committing a crime.
Each new driverless vehicle will almost certainly have cameras on it; these could be accessed by government for either good or ill. Billions of cell phone cameras & those on laptops (mine is covered by electrical tape, flip phone is off >98% of the time) could lead to an overbearing government. & by its very nature, cell phones can be used to track your location. These static license plate cameras are the least of our concerns.
maxxcool7421
Posts: 880 +1,266
hahahahah so you voted for a guy who rapes women (trump convicted-civel-sex-abuse), kidnaps people from other countries and kills other presidents... yeah your morals are suspect.
People always complain about their privacy being intruded on. Look at the governments Lifelog project. They wanted to collect info on everyone, but people complained so it was terminated. The next day, Facebook was created. And people post all their information willingly. People love to complain, but aren't smart enough to know they've been tricked into doing what they've complained about. So complain about cameras now. Eventually you'll give up your plate info thru a game or app or something stupid. Like mapping the world for Niantic (Google offshoot company) thru catching Pokemon.
The government needs a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to your car.
The government does not need a warrant to pay third-party vendors to collect location data on every single car that passes cameras within their gigantic networks.
It seems to me like we've sacrificed massive amounts of privacy for the general public in order to get around the 4th amendment. The people supporting these networks must trust the government a lot more than I do.
The government does not need a warrant to pay third-party vendors to collect location data on every single car that passes cameras within their gigantic networks.
It seems to me like we've sacrificed massive amounts of privacy for the general public in order to get around the 4th amendment. The people supporting these networks must trust the government a lot more than I do.
p51d007
Posts: 5,171 +5,351
I'm a big pro police guy, dispatched 911 for around 20 years.
BUT, that being said there needs to be iron clad restrictions on how this
technology is used because we know what happens when GOVERNMENT
obtains power. It's the responsibility of CITIZENS to keep government under
control, but unfortunately we don't! Only around 57% of registered voters voted.
There is also an old saying that kind of rings true.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
BUT, that being said there needs to be iron clad restrictions on how this
technology is used because we know what happens when GOVERNMENT
obtains power. It's the responsibility of CITIZENS to keep government under
control, but unfortunately we don't! Only around 57% of registered voters voted.
There is also an old saying that kind of rings true.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
And that’s part of my point. I don’t care if anyone knows, I’m not committing a crime so so what.
JaredTheDragon
Posts: 819 +570
SO you literally don't have a brain at all. You are CIA. No human being would say such a thing without being paid, son.
You aren't real.
yRaz
Posts: 9,311 +16,392
Maybe he just has 2 brain cells fighting over 3rd place
Endymio
Posts: 5,150 +4,808
I'd call your intelligence suspect, but not even the most half-witted member of the fascist Left actually believes that absurd fairy-tale of a sexual assault in a public department store. And please: stop trying to misrepresent a civil lawsuit as a "conviction", especially when the woman brought forth zero evidence, claims she can't remember the day, month, or even the year of the supposed altercation, and never told a single friend or family member about the incident -- until decades later, when she was a famous anti-Trump magazine writer.
But not even that level of blind hypocrisy excuses openly advocating for destruction of government property and infrastructure, simply because you disagree with laws being enforced. Do you wish to speak to that point, or simply check yourself into the nearest police precinct as a danger to yourself and others?
This is exactly how every expansion of government surveillance gets sold: hold up one dramatic success story and pretend it justifies building permanent infrastructure that records millions of innocent people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Nobody is arguing that catching a truck full of meth is bad. That’s a complete straw man. The real question is whether you’re willing to normalize recording the movements of everyone, every day, just because it occasionally helps catch a criminal. By that logic, the government should install cameras inside every living room because they would solve some murders. They should read every text message because it would stop some kidnappings. They should record every phone call because it would catch some conspiracies. If your only standard is “it catches criminals,” there is literally no limit to government surveillance.
Your argument also assumes today’s use is tomorrow’s use. History says otherwise. Governments don’t shrink databases—they expand them. Powers granted for violent crime become powers used for tax collection, immigration enforcement, political investigations, minor offenses, civil disputes, and whatever the next emergency happens to be. Mission creep isn’t paranoia; it’s one of the most predictable patterns in government.
You ask what freedom is being lost? The freedom to move through your own country without having your location logged, archived, analyzed, and shared. The freedom to attend a political rally without creating a government record. The freedom to visit a church, synagogue, mosque, therapist, doctor, attorney, journalist, union meeting, recovery group, or friend without your travel becoming permanent data. The freedom to associate without being cataloged. Those are real freedoms, and once they’re gone, they’re extraordinarily difficult to get back.
And no, a license plate being visible to people physically standing on the street is not remotely the same thing as an automated nationwide surveillance network that records where you’ve been, when you were there, how often you travel, who travels with you, where you sleep, where you work, and every pattern of your life for months or years. That’s the difference between someone seeing your car drive by and a searchable historical dossier of your movements. Pretending those are equivalent ignores the entire reason these systems exist.
The real danger isn’t today’s police officer making a legitimate stop. It’s tomorrow’s bureaucrat, the corrupt insider, the stalker with unauthorized access, the hacked database, the political administration with different priorities, the data broker, the foreign intelligence service, or the future law that redefines what the database is allowed to be used for. Every surveillance system is eventually judged not by its intended use but by its worst abuse.
The most dangerous sentence in politics has always been, “Don’t worry, it’ll only be used for this.” History is littered with examples proving otherwise.
A free society does not judge a surveillance system solely by the criminals it catches. It judges it by the power it gives over millions of innocent people who were never suspects in the first place. Once every movement becomes data and every citizen becomes a record in a searchable database, you’ve crossed a line that previous generations spent centuries trying to prevent governments from crossing.
If your answer to every liberty concern is, “Well, they caught one criminal,” then you’ve reduced freedom to a reward the government allows only when it’s convenient. That’s not how constitutional liberties work. They exist precisely because governments, regardless of who controls them, have a long history of asking for powers they promise they’ll never abuse—until they do.
Nobody is arguing that catching a truck full of meth is bad. That’s a complete straw man. The real question is whether you’re willing to normalize recording the movements of everyone, every day, just because it occasionally helps catch a criminal. By that logic, the government should install cameras inside every living room because they would solve some murders. They should read every text message because it would stop some kidnappings. They should record every phone call because it would catch some conspiracies. If your only standard is “it catches criminals,” there is literally no limit to government surveillance.
Your argument also assumes today’s use is tomorrow’s use. History says otherwise. Governments don’t shrink databases—they expand them. Powers granted for violent crime become powers used for tax collection, immigration enforcement, political investigations, minor offenses, civil disputes, and whatever the next emergency happens to be. Mission creep isn’t paranoia; it’s one of the most predictable patterns in government.
You ask what freedom is being lost? The freedom to move through your own country without having your location logged, archived, analyzed, and shared. The freedom to attend a political rally without creating a government record. The freedom to visit a church, synagogue, mosque, therapist, doctor, attorney, journalist, union meeting, recovery group, or friend without your travel becoming permanent data. The freedom to associate without being cataloged. Those are real freedoms, and once they’re gone, they’re extraordinarily difficult to get back.
And no, a license plate being visible to people physically standing on the street is not remotely the same thing as an automated nationwide surveillance network that records where you’ve been, when you were there, how often you travel, who travels with you, where you sleep, where you work, and every pattern of your life for months or years. That’s the difference between someone seeing your car drive by and a searchable historical dossier of your movements. Pretending those are equivalent ignores the entire reason these systems exist.
The real danger isn’t today’s police officer making a legitimate stop. It’s tomorrow’s bureaucrat, the corrupt insider, the stalker with unauthorized access, the hacked database, the political administration with different priorities, the data broker, the foreign intelligence service, or the future law that redefines what the database is allowed to be used for. Every surveillance system is eventually judged not by its intended use but by its worst abuse.
The most dangerous sentence in politics has always been, “Don’t worry, it’ll only be used for this.” History is littered with examples proving otherwise.
A free society does not judge a surveillance system solely by the criminals it catches. It judges it by the power it gives over millions of innocent people who were never suspects in the first place. Once every movement becomes data and every citizen becomes a record in a searchable database, you’ve crossed a line that previous generations spent centuries trying to prevent governments from crossing.
If your answer to every liberty concern is, “Well, they caught one criminal,” then you’ve reduced freedom to a reward the government allows only when it’s convenient. That’s not how constitutional liberties work. They exist precisely because governments, regardless of who controls them, have a long history of asking for powers they promise they’ll never abuse—until they do.
Endymio
Posts: 5,150 +4,808
You're inventing a "freedom" that never existed. Public roads are public: you have zero expectation of privacy upon them, and never had. And we've already been doing this for the last 100 years: literally paying police to drive around on our roads -- sometimes openly, sometimes surreptitiously in unmarked cars -- and observe what cars are where, often looking for and even recording specific vehicles. This is simply a much more efficient form of the police APB or 'BOLO' that's been widely used for many decades.
It's also ironic that those who complain the loudest about this imaginary "freedom" are those most likely to ignore -- or even advocate for -- the loss of many real freedoms, such as the right to own certain objects, to do as you want on your own property, and many others.
This privacy need is a western thing, and almost strictly American.
I spend a great amount of time in Asia and never had concerns over plate scanners, which are literally everywhere, every road, every alley, every parking lot.
It’s called no contact apprehension.
And it works.
Most people obey the driving laws.
And for those fleeing from non-driving crimes, they can be apprehended later by following the data.
I want the same thing in this country. Then we can toss the idea that people are targeted based on race and accept the fact that anyone caught did the crime.
Sadly, the idea of the 1% still holds.
Those that break the laws of the road tend to have the ability to simply pay the fine without care.
Similar threads
