zlacker

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

>>varenc+(OP)
Interesting. It actually is posted that my property is under video surveillance. Colorado though. It seems like you would have a poor argument that you can’t collect and analyze images of a public space.

One cynical aspect of Colorado law I learned about going down the ALPR rabbit hole: in Colorado it is a higher class misdemeanor than regular traffic violations to purposely obfuscate your plate to interfere with automated plate reading. The law is “well written” in that there is little wiggle room if they could somehow prove your intent. Meanwhile it is a lesser class violation to simply not have a plate at all. Their intent feels pretty clear to me.

>>Karrot+n6
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+l9
I fail to see how passively recording a space that you don't own is "first amendment protected". Passively recording a space isn't in and of itself speech.

>>varenc+(OP)
Great. Let's stop using Ring cameras for security then

>>LocalH+Ng
I can photograph and publish whatever I am allowed to see in public (with very few exceptions - think Naval Air Station Key West), this has been affirmed and reaffirmed by countless courts.

The best part about publishing? You have no right to question when, how, or if I am going to do it - that discretion is also free speech.

>>bitexp+l9
> 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.

This a shitty argument from a time where mass surveillance wasn't possible. If you have "no expectation of privacy in public spaces" than Governments could force you to wear an ankle monitor and body camera at all times since you have "no expectation of privacy".

>>bitexp+l9
> 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+lp
Yes, I agree, but I am saying there are virtually zero grounds to legislate the use case I provided. They try to weasel it on "privacy" grounds and "transparency" when you share the data, but yeah. I agree.

>>IlikeK+To
You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights citizens have. The one area I might start to agree is corporate personhood and giving corporations the same rights as a private citizen in this regard because their interests are very different from a private citizens. The whole point of the constitution is largely what the government can't do to its citizens. The goal is to protect citizens FROM its government by carving out our rights. These of course apply broadly, but I can't, for example, as a private citizen really violate your 4A rights very easily.

>>bitexp+Pz
> You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights the governments have.

Can you correct that typo? I've been thinking about what you mean for a while and I can't figure it out.

edit: Thank you

>>bitexp+r7
> seems like you would have a poor argument that you can’t collect and analyze images of a public space

Absolutely agree... but the CA law is clear that tracking license plates get special treatment! It being public space doesn't matter. It's wild to me that how you analyze the video is regulated. Also that no similar regulation for the regular public doing facial recognition exists. Just ALPR.

I wonder how I'm supposed to comply with the law if I were to take a public webcam feed, like one from a highway[0], and run ALPR on it myself. I obviously can't post any notices there. And I'm not the camera operator so can't comply with anything related to that. But I would be doing ALPR which does require I follow rules. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Will be interesting to see what happens to the law. It feels outdated, but I'm doubtful any CA politician is going to expend karma making ALPR more permissive. So I bet it'll stay on the books and just go largely unenforced.

https://go511.com/TrafficTransit/Cameras

>>a45646+ph
Who uses them anyway? Almost nobody in Europe

>>15155+lp
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+Go1
> 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.

>>iberat+6j1
That's awesome.

In the US, they are everywhere - apartment buildings, houses, business. Amazon's Ring might the most popular, but there are many vendors.

>>a45646+ph
Build a better, cheaper replacement, then?

>>varenc+EQ
I would blatantly ignore that law. I am in a position to easily fight a state entity with legal resources. They definitely cannot regulate that constitutionally. As a private citizen I am not posting notices. It is bad law that doesn't protect anyone and erodes protected rights.

>>RHSeeg+Go1
You are of course correct. There are always limits on speech. In this area, however, we have already decided how it works. You cannot regulate what private citizens record in public spaces with no expectation of privacy and you definitely cannot regulate what they do with that data.

>>bitexp+jl2
Maybe they can't regulate that "constitutionally" (for your understanding of that document, which has no legal weight).

They still might be able to regulate it for all practical purposes.

>>15155+0t1
> > 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.

>>LocalH+Ng
Reproducing information is within the legal limits of "speech and press".

You don't have to have a physical, lead-type printing press to be protected by Freedom of the Press, and you don't have to physically vocalize to be protected by Freedom of Speech.

>>IlikeK+To
No, it's a great right.

You (personally) can't stop me from photographing you in public, Ms. Steisand.

And Freedom of Speech has no sensible connection to being forced to carry objects. Your argument also assumes no one ever goes into private houses, where 1A doesn't apply.

>>IAmBro+0O2
Potentially. I care a lot about this. I think this is a pretty easy case to fight them on 1A grounds as the case law is quite settled and clear per my understanding. So they can have unconstitutional laws on the books, but the long tail of that fight is against the.