zlacker

>>theamk+(OP)
I don't get it

99% of the population is voluntarily carrying sophisticated tracking devices with self-reporting always on

even if the signal is off it catches up later

with SEVERAL layers of tracking

not just your phone carrier but Google+Apple stores have your location as the apps are always on in the background

even phone makers have their own tracking layer sometimes

we know EVERY person that went to Epstein Island from their phone tracking and they didn't even have smartphones back then

Flock is just another lazy layer/databroker

>>ck2+lb
There is also no legal "reasonable expectation of privacy" for a license plate displayed on a public road.

>>rpjt+5g
I'd argue it's a 4A violation to require it to be displayed, though. It's a search of your registration 'papers' without RAS or PC of an offense.

The fact that driving is a 'privilege' doesn't negate your rights to be secure in your papers, the police should have to have articulable suspicion that your car is unregistered or unlicensed before they can demand you to display your plate.

>>mothba+3m
I dont personally agree but that is a really interesting argument I can kinda get behind. I guess the question is, what if you have footage of a crime being committed, and you would have a great lead if you only had a way to pair a vehicle with a person?

>>kortex+9C
I also don't agree with the argument you replied to, but a counter-argument to your point is that we don't mandate individuals to wear name tags while in public