[reenorap]

It's probably never going to happen because neither party cares about protecting Americans rights, but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government, or whoever else.

I don't know if you could ever collect this data and never have foreign entities or NSA moles infiltrate into it by sending their agents to work at that company and steal the data whenever they want. But I can see how this would be good at fighting crime but also a completely and absolute destruction of privacy.

We need politicians that actually care about Americans and their rights but no one who cares is dumb enough to want to go into politics, which is the sad thing.

[SilverElfin]

The government should not be allowed to violate civil rights by outsourcing the harm to private industry

[leonidasrup]

"The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties, such as banks and phone companies, generally have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

[voakbasda]

The fact that has been a routine practice is egregious, but the bigger insult is the fact that this loophole has been known for quite some time. Yet, our legislators and judiciary have allowed the practices to continue. There’s nothing but foxes in the henhouse.

[wmf]

Just don't collect the data. If it's too dangerous for the government to have then private companies shouldn't have it either. The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement; if we decide as a society that we don't want to do it then just ban it completely.

[themafia]

> The entire purpose of license plate readers is to assist law enforcement

It was the repossession companies that deployed them first. The police, as a general rule, are about 10 years behind on technology almost everywhere, so when new stuff drops, it's actually profit driven industries that deploy it.

Our company cut deals with several large business in the area, like malls, and we deployed the cameras at the entrances to their lots. If a car on the "hot list" pulled in, we'd get an alert, then dispatch a truck to go collect the vehicle.

[salawat]

Username checks out.

[archontes]

The way it should work is that if a government can't do a thing, then they can't pay for the same thing.

Remove the demand and the activity will dry up.

[coliveira]

It is the government that wants these companies to do this, so they can get access to the data!

[wmf]

I would say Congress is not the FBI but I guess that's no longer true.

[baby_souffle]

You can't realistically ban cameras and character recognition software.

[pkaeding]

NH banned ALPRs, with some narrow exceptions.

https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm

[wl]

It’d be hard to keep individuals from doing this. But individuals aren’t running networks of cameras. Companies are. Those companies probably couldn’t fly under the radar selling LPR data if the practice was banned.

[tardedmeme]

How do you know individuals aren't running ALPR networks?

[fragmede]

Most individuals I know only have access to a handful of places they could put ALPR devices. Their home, their work, a couple of really really close friends who trust them enough to let them setup a camera on their property. Individuals could pay people to host their cameras but then that starts looking like a business, so while it's theoretically possible for an individual to have a network of APLRs just for the fun of it, that just seems like weird enough hobby that, I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't think anyone is doing that.

[saguntum]

You can ban the commercialization and mass scaling of the technology. Just because you can't prevent something at a small scale doesn't mean you can't prevent corporations and government agencies from doing it without exposing themselves to unacceptable legal risk.

[analog31]

You can ban possession of the data if you attach statutory damages per infraction.

[MaKey]

You can make it illegal to use private cameras for surveillance of public spaces. In Europe this is already the case.

[tardedmeme]

It's actually a very cool law. You can see people expressing themselves more freely because of rules like this.

[pictureofabear]

You can ban what’s done with the software/hardware, just as we ban assault with a deadly weapon.

[pigeons]

You can ban certain ways of using them, and enforce it and serve punishment for violation.

[tintor]

You can ban mass surveillance.

[ipaddr]

You can ban pictures with certain content.

[mothballed]

There is little chance I could just post up cameras wherever my ex travels and note all the time she arrives and leaves at all intersections and get away with that without at least a restraining order ordering me to stop. What they are actually doing is stalking by method of a network of cameras deliberately installed to follow people from place to place. It isn't generalized observation in pursuit of speech, it arguably isn't even speech, but rather mass individualized stalking. Maybe 1A allows that but that doesn't seem to be the law on the books for anyone else trying to stalk people in such a way.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with 1A being broad enough to including recording literally everything in public and meticulously cataloging and following everyone, but only if the rest of the amendments are read in the same broad and literal manner. Meaning I can own nukes, I don't have to display a plate, the 10th amendment would stop the feds from outlawing intrastate weed, etc. What it looks like what happens is the feds cherry pick interpretations of the bill of rights to trump up their powers and then give the least charitable interpretations to the plebs.

[tessierashpool]

but we need to have some sort of law that creates a Chinese firewall between these mass surveillance data and the government

technically we have one, the Fourth Amendment, but SCOTUS defanged it completely, years ago.

[frogperson]

Americans (the majority anyway) are still far too comfortable to care about any of this. Unemployment would need to be like 50% before most people even stopped to think "hey, maybe I should pay attention and vote".

[djkoolaide]

What's a Chinese firewall?

[reenorap]

oops I meant Chinese Wall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

[singleshot_]

They’re called ethical walls now, for obvious reasons (although the room is still Chinese, for whatever distinction).

[qotgalaxy]

No they aren't.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's a Chinese firewall?

"The Great Firewall (GFW; simplified Chinese: 防火长城; traditional Chinese: 防火長城; pinyin: Fánghuǒ Chángchéng) is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically" [1].

(I don't think they mean a Chinese wall [2].)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Alternative_terms

[hdgvhicv]

Only america can think there no harm in mass collection of data, and actively is against any attempts to limit it (gdpr for example) because it’s “anti growth”

[hedora]

The Swiss are, if anything, worse. They passed a mass surveillance law, it was challenged at referendum, and upheld with 70% of the vote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/switzerland-vo...

[hdgvhicv]

Maybe I should rephrase it

Only America loves having unaccountable private companies collect data but hate it when the accountable government does.