Valid concern or paranoia?

[SAJ-99]

The Flock cameras may have some utlity for safety, but so does every draconian invasion of privacy in the name of security. What we've seen demonstrated by our government since 2001 is that individual liberty is a nusiance to them.

There was a case in the late 1990's about the the State of Illinois putting officers in positions to monitor people buying fireworks in Indiana, where they are legal, and bringing them into Illinois, where they are not. Once they crossed the state line they pull them over, write a ticket (misdemeanor), and take the fireworks. I believe it was upheld (Commerce IN vs Safety IL arguments). Might still happen today. I don't see how using cameras is much different. That said, this article example below seems like overreach, but date mining flock info to build probable cause might fly in some districts where the government thinks they know better and need to suppress the populace (like Texas). However, liberty can't mean "knowingly breaking the law and not getting caught". I admit there is a fine line somewhere.

I am more worried by the paranoid. They don't want to pay taxes to hire enough LEOs and then complain when misdemeanor crime increases.

How Flock Cameras Turned a Legal Road Trip Into Probable Cause

Flock Safety ALPR cameras helped Wisconsin deputies cite a driver's legal Michigan trips as probable cause to search his car for marijuana.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Gellar]

"Hi, I'm Officer Olsen. I joined the police force to help out my community, and stalk my ex girflriend."

I laughed because I know an officer Olsen. He’s more likely to search the database for license plates like this guy. No companies would do that?

 

[NR_Hunter]

I laughed because I know an officer Olsen. He’s more likely to search the database for license plates like this guy. No companies would do that? View attachment 413934

I’d try to get into his OnX and look at his pins, and then decide if he’s worth stalking or not. I’m that bad of a big game hunter.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Breach of privacy is when the camera is monitoring within your home or other private space.

Why all the big hype and worry about a camera monitoring your law abiding and ethical behavior in public?
There is a pretty clear line between public good and personal privilege.

 

[Bonasababy]

Now you know how wildlife must feel about trail cams.

 

[morley.tyler]

If your doing nothing wrong it shouldn’t make your worried. Why the cameras are there ( and everywhere) is what it is. None of them will go away nor will there be less in the future.

Now, stop picking your nose!

Respectfully, this is the type of argument that can be used against those who support cameras today. But when the other side comes along, that's exactly the argument they'll use to register all your firearms. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". Privacy, like every other right enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the additional 17 amendments, must be exercised to be protected. The slippery slope is having oil poured on it...
My old school North Idaho Libertarian is starting to show... I love my country, I hate my Gov't

 

[Bonasababy]

So many see the good uses for the things only...and fail to see how it can be completely different.

Potential for abuse is endless. Even worse they say safeguards are in place and work at the same time media reports keep coming that expose such claims as false.

 

[jpc01101]

What is the "correct" way to look at this?

Likely something like there are now cameras everywhere hooked up to a centralized system with massive AI power behind them to identify you and track your every move. If you can't think of the issues with Government having access to that then maybe, to you, there isn't a problem.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Breach of privacy is when the camera is monitoring within your home or other private space.

Why all the big hype and worry about a camera monitoring your law abiding and ethical behavior in public?
There is a pretty clear line between public good and personal privilege.

I think if you look at tyrannical regimes, they often have a secret police that utilize surveillance by any means possible. Hiding Jews in Nazi Germany would have been considered illegal, but would it be unethical? How do you think Stalin or Hitler would have used flock cameras?

Just some foods for thoughts.

 

[Elky Welky]

This was John Oliver's whole deep dive this week. Living in the panopticon is great.