12thAngryMan said:annie88 said:12thAngryMan said:
People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.
No, they're being rounded up based on being in the country illegally.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Seriously, knock it off with this bull*****
It's not bull, it's a perfectly good example for the poster who says this idea is totally unthinkable. Sure, many of them are illegals and they should be deported. I don't think we disagree there. But there are absolutely instances of people getting harassed, detained, and in some cases deported who are here legally, for no other reason than the color of their skin or their last name.
12thAngryMan said:annie88 said:12thAngryMan said:
People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.
No, they're being rounded up based on being in the country illegally.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Seriously, knock it off with this bull*****
It's not bull, it's a perfectly good example for the poster who says this idea is totally unthinkable. Sure, many of them are illegals and they should be deported. I don't think we disagree there. But there are absolutely instances of people getting harassed, detained, and in some cases deported who are here legally, for no other reason than the color of their skin or their last name.
TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TAMUallen said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.
So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?
If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.
For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.
I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1
Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.
When was the last time America rounded people up by race? WW2?
I'll ask you, what expectation of privacy do you have out in public?
You're literally proving my point. I was gonna say Germany didn't have a precedent of rounding up people by race yet the Holocaust happened, but you PROVIDED a historical example of it happening in our country!
That is absolutely crazy that you're dismissing that.
And then you fall back on the question you've asked everyone else in this chat who provided very valid answers to that question. I understand your point of view. It helps you do your job. It even does a lot of good. I am fully aware of many cases where a car was returned to its owner. or better yet the little girls are found in the kidnapped vehicle a state over.
I just want to encourage you to think outside of your bubble, and think in the future. It sure would be a shame if you helped pave the way for total mass surveillance all because you wanted to make your job a little easier this week.
12thAngryMan said:
People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.
TAMUallen said:annie88 said:TAMUallen said:annie88 said:TAMUallen said:annie88 said:
Then he pretty much can't do anything today without being upset. Given all the cameras around towns, facial recognition, etc., not only on homes but businesses and computers in our cars, phones and watches, you name it. There's nothing you can basically do today without it being able to be tracked.
Very much used when people are under suspicion of murder or crime. Even when they think they're being clever by leaving their phones at home. That's just a small part of it.
That ship has sailed. But again, license plates are on your vehicles. There is nothing private about them, regardless of who's recording them or how. That's what this original post was about.
I think Clayton Williams got in a good deal of hurt over his own similar words on just accepting it
Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?
Holy cow dude
No.
Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.
Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.
He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.
He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.
You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.
It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.
If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.
There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.
Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are
12thAngryMan said:annie88 said:12thAngryMan said:
People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.
No, they're being rounded up based on being in the country illegally.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Seriously, knock it off with this bull*****
It's not bull, it's a perfectly good example for the poster who says this idea is totally unthinkable. Sure, many of them are illegals and they should be deported. I don't think we disagree there. But there are absolutely instances of people getting harassed, detained, and in some cases deported who are here legally, for no other reason than the color of their skin or their last name.
TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:
They have been extremely helpful in fighting crime. I'm a fan.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
The argument isn't HOW effective they are. I believe they are extremely effective. I am so thankful they are being used for good now. But everything that was put into place for one of these two reasons, 1) good motives to temporarily boost our economy 2) reactionary to a major crisis, all had good intentions but have never left. The income tax of 1913 was intended to be a temporary tax to help us recover from WW1, and a lot of the 9/11 patriot act as well as a lot of the COVID 19 acts and powers are all still in place. You give the government an inch on temporary terms and they take a mile forever. They rarely role back power. SO, when these cameras inevitably become the backbone of societies crime fighting, and a tyrannical government takes power, its only a matter of time that we see the same effectiveness that allows law enforcement to find kidnapped little girls a couple states over, used to round up people based on race. The only way to prevent that from being a reality is thinking about the future and preventing these from being installed, even if they are extremely useful now.
Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.
Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:BusterAg said:Cargo Shorts FTW said:
The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.
You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.
Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353
I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).
Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.
Exactly how are your travels on public roadways, private?
The vehicle information for city council etc is withheld as a matter of safety. Nothing stops you from standing outside the city hall garage and recording their license plate when they enter it though.
You're either an idiot that can't read or you're being intentionally obtuse so you can regurgitate something one of your cop buddies said (even if it's not on point). The data that you say is public info and not an invasion of privacy (license plate location data, pictures from flock cams, recordings from the microphones, the actual contracts with public entities) is now all of a sudden an invasion of privacy to provide to someone. If you don't see how the city is contradicting itself, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should question what this says about your ability to see when someone is lying to you or what it says about your ability to complete a simple investigatory interview.
Maybe it's better if you just take a nap in your car while everyone else has a discussion.
Maybe you're just too dense to understand how these cameras are used by large cities. No one is stopping you from hanging out under the flock cameras and recording exactly what they record. No one is stopping you from using that information to figure out where a car is traveling and whether there is a pattern. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If you're too dense to comprehend that, that is a you problem.
They're not going to provide you with license plates and addresses for politicians bc that's a liability issue bc they receive threats on a regular basis. They have no expectation of privacy out in public and you can follow them and record their license plate and movements in public areas to your hearts content.
If the politicians are refusing to reveal the details of the contracts, you need to replace the politicians. Where I'm at, we don't use sound. They're strictly license plate readers. Right now we use them more than anyone else in the metroplex. If we decided to use sound, that would be fine with me because again, you're in public.
Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
Colonel Kurtz said:
These need to be struck down like red light cameras were.
Pinochet said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:BusterAg said:Cargo Shorts FTW said:
The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.
You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.
Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353
I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).
Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.
Exactly how are your travels on public roadways, private?
The vehicle information for city council etc is withheld as a matter of safety. Nothing stops you from standing outside the city hall garage and recording their license plate when they enter it though.
You're either an idiot that can't read or you're being intentionally obtuse so you can regurgitate something one of your cop buddies said (even if it's not on point). The data that you say is public info and not an invasion of privacy (license plate location data, pictures from flock cams, recordings from the microphones, the actual contracts with public entities) is now all of a sudden an invasion of privacy to provide to someone. If you don't see how the city is contradicting itself, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should question what this says about your ability to see when someone is lying to you or what it says about your ability to complete a simple investigatory interview.
Maybe it's better if you just take a nap in your car while everyone else has a discussion.
Maybe you're just too dense to understand how these cameras are used by large cities. No one is stopping you from hanging out under the flock cameras and recording exactly what they record. No one is stopping you from using that information to figure out where a car is traveling and whether there is a pattern. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If you're too dense to comprehend that, that is a you problem.
They're not going to provide you with license plates and addresses for politicians bc that's a liability issue bc they receive threats on a regular basis. They have no expectation of privacy out in public and you can follow them and record their license plate and movements in public areas to your hearts content.
If the politicians are refusing to reveal the details of the contracts, you need to replace the politicians. Where I'm at, we don't use sound. They're strictly license plate readers. Right now we use them more than anyone else in the metroplex. If we decided to use sound, that would be fine with me because again, you're in public.
At no point did I say I asked for license plates and politician addresses. In fact, you told me that data isn't part of the Flock dataset. I asked for the data.
"We don't use sound" doesn't mean that it isn't recorded. And that's really the point. All those things are recorded and kept. Everyone just points at everyone else saying I would never do that and if you're worried you should look at the other guy. The problem with sound is that the microphones are picking up significantly more than the human ear can pick up. You do have an expectation of privacy with respect to conversations in some otherwise public places, but you probably know that and are just making up more **** to fit your argument. You really are making it clear why everyone thinks DPD is a rotten to the core. The guys who have been there forever like you and the night court bailiff looking guy are just bad apples that can't get in anywhere else. The good ones are just looking for a better place to go.
HoustonAggie11 said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
who in the hell are you to say he is bad cop, you seem like an angry little man.
Bocephus said:TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TAMUallen said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.
So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?
If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.
For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.
I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1
Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.
When was the last time America rounded people up by race? WW2?
I'll ask you, what expectation of privacy do you have out in public?
You're literally proving my point. I was gonna say Germany didn't have a precedent of rounding up people by race yet the Holocaust happened, but you PROVIDED a historical example of it happening in our country!
That is absolutely crazy that you're dismissing that.
And then you fall back on the question you've asked everyone else in this chat who provided very valid answers to that question. I understand your point of view. It helps you do your job. It even does a lot of good. I am fully aware of many cases where a car was returned to its owner. or better yet the little girls are found in the kidnapped vehicle a state over.
I just want to encourage you to think outside of your bubble, and think in the future. It sure would be a shame if you helped pave the way for total mass surveillance all because you wanted to make your job a little easier this week.
Paced the way for mass surveillance? Dramatic much?
I would love to think my opinion on this subject has an outsized impact on whether it is adopted in other cities or not, but unfortunately it has no impact. AI controlled drones are a much bigger threat imo than stationary cameras. We will have those flying in Dallas soon. Where everyone will continue to lose me is that this is in public. You have zero expectation of privacy when you're out in public and I do not see that changing anytime soon. An AI drone with a super sensitive microphone picking up a buzz word from 500 feet up, is ultimately the same as a stranger walking by and hearing it. There's of course a potential for greater abuse, but where do you draw the line when it is in public?
IIIHorn said:
Toll roads have used cameras for decades.
LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:
Toll roads have used cameras for decades.
There's a different between toll roads and regular roads. What do you think that could be?
IIIHorn said:LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:
Toll roads have used cameras for decades.
There's a different between toll roads and regular roads. What do you think that could be?
Tollerance?
LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:
Toll roads have used cameras for decades.
There's a different between toll roads and regular roads. What do you think that could be?
Tollerance?
Ownership. Toll roads are privately owned, at least in Texas. Also they aren't required for daily use just to live in the modern world. You can go literally anywhere you want in this state and not use a toll road. You can't say that for regular streets.
txyaloo said:Bocephus said:TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TheAggieWalrus said:Bocephus said:TAMUallen said:Bocephus said:Pinochet said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:Bocephus said:BusterAg said:MemphisAg1 said:
There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.
The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.
Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.
Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.
When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.
We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?
Because that usually requires a warrant.
And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.
The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.
You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.
How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.
The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.
So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?
If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.
For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.
I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1
Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.
When was the last time America rounded people up by race? WW2?
I'll ask you, what expectation of privacy do you have out in public?
You're literally proving my point. I was gonna say Germany didn't have a precedent of rounding up people by race yet the Holocaust happened, but you PROVIDED a historical example of it happening in our country!
That is absolutely crazy that you're dismissing that.
And then you fall back on the question you've asked everyone else in this chat who provided very valid answers to that question. I understand your point of view. It helps you do your job. It even does a lot of good. I am fully aware of many cases where a car was returned to its owner. or better yet the little girls are found in the kidnapped vehicle a state over.
I just want to encourage you to think outside of your bubble, and think in the future. It sure would be a shame if you helped pave the way for total mass surveillance all because you wanted to make your job a little easier this week.
Paced the way for mass surveillance? Dramatic much?
I would love to think my opinion on this subject has an outsized impact on whether it is adopted in other cities or not, but unfortunately it has no impact. AI controlled drones are a much bigger threat imo than stationary cameras. We will have those flying in Dallas soon. Where everyone will continue to lose me is that this is in public. You have zero expectation of privacy when you're out in public and I do not see that changing anytime soon. An AI drone with a super sensitive microphone picking up a buzz word from 500 feet up, is ultimately the same as a stranger walking by and hearing it. There's of course a potential for greater abuse, but where do you draw the line when it is in public?
How would you feel if a private business, located outside a secure police parking lot, installed a publicly accessible ALPR that recorded every license plate leaving the lot? It then cross referenced those plates with public databases to identify the registered owners specifically flagging officers' personal vehicles and publishing that information using only publicly available sources. Would you consider that within their rights?
What if individuals stood on a public sidewalk outside the police department and recorded every personal vehicle and driver leaving the facility? Would you support that activity? Would your colleagues support it? Or would officers question them, ask why they are recording a secure facility, demand identification, or threaten arrest if they decline to provide it?
I have seen similar situations occur many times over the last decade as "police accountability" has become more mainstream. If law enforcement is uncomfortable with private citizens recording officers' vehicles from public spaces, why should private citizens be expected to accept law enforcement doing the same to them?
"Trust us, we're from the government"?
LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:LOYAL AG said:IIIHorn said:
Toll roads have used cameras for decades.
There's a different between toll roads and regular roads. What do you think that could be?
Tollerance?
Ownership. Toll roads are privately owned, at least in Texas. Also they aren't required for daily use just to live in the modern world. You can go literally anywhere you want in this state and not use a toll road. You can't say that for regular streets.
