zlacker

>>theamk+(OP)
I keep wanting to see the "Rainbows End" style experiment.

The common reaction to surveillance seems to be similar to how we diet. We allow/validate a little bit of the negative agent, but try to limit it and then discuss endlessly how to keep the amount tamped down.

One aspect explored/hypothesized in Rainbows End, is what happens when surveillance becomes so ubiquitous that it's not a privilege of the "haves". I wonder if rather than "deflocking", the counter point is to surround every civic building with a raft of flock cameras that are in the public domain.

Just thinking the contrarian thoughts.

>>travis+zh
I started building ALPR and speed detection systems for my house based on RTSP feed. I kind of want to finish this with an outdoor TV that has a leaderboard of the drivers that drive the fastest and their license plate in public display on my property, but visible to the street. In part to make my neighbors aware of how powerful ALPR technology is now, but also many of my neighbors should slow the heck down. I am not sure how popular this would be, but also I kind of like starting the right kind of trouble :)

>>bitexp+Ty
If you're in CA, I learned recently that any use of automatic license plate recognition here is regulated and has a bunch of rules. Technically just turning on the ALPR feature in your consumer level camera is illegal if you don't also do things like post a public notice with your usage and privacy policy.

The law is a bit old and seems like it was written under the assumption that normal people wouldn't have access to ALPR tech for their homes. I suspect it gets very little enforcement.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

>>varenc+rK
Cities in CA also often put their own ALPR restrictions on btw so you'll want to check both state and local laws.

>>Karrot+OQ
I feel if you have a camera on your property with a view of public spaces they have a losing argument. I doubt none of that holds water constitutionally. This is first amendment protected. If you are filming a public space with no expectation of privacy the government has no constitutional authority to restrict you if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

So far the only legal area that matters is the government itself being regulated in how they use ALPR since they are the entity that can actually infringe upon constitutional rights.

>>bitexp+MT
> if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

"Never sharing it?" What? Free speech is literally defined by the fact that you can distribute information. Publishing your video feed (a la news helicopters, etc.) is clearly a protected activity - possibly even more so than collecting the data to begin with.

>>15155+M91
Nearly every right is limited in some way "for the good of society". You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it. You can't run into an airport and yell that you've got a bomb. We, as a society, put limits on what we allow people to do because doing so is better for society as a whole.

I expect there are plenty of cases where you can't publish your video feed.

>>RHSeeg+792
> You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it.

Copyright is "mostly" civil law, not criminal.

> can't run into an airport and yell that you've got a bomb.

Right: now try and argue that a license plate intentionally designed for public visibility is somehow subject to the same restrictions. All 50 states have legislation requiring public display of these objects: what tailoring of the First Amendment would legally be consistent with past case law?

> I expect there are plenty of cases where you can't publish your video feed.

Legally these cases are few and far between, and none of these exceptions apply to the situation being discussed. You're welcome to try and cite a case or explain relevant case law - good luck.

Freedom of the press is extraordinarily broad and is one of the more difficult things to limit using criminal penalties.

>>15155+rd2
> > You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it.

> Copyright is "mostly" civil law, not criminal.

Does that matter? Seriously - doesn't the 1st Amendment also protect against the government raising civil complaints?

I think the better point here is: Disney suing you for copyright violations is not a First-Amendment case, because Disney is not the US government - so this isn't a Free Speech issue at all.