It's theoretically possible to still comply with the spirit of the Fourth
Amendment by tightly controlling access to the data. The problem is that
there's almost zero chance that will happen, and even if there's an
intention to tightly control it, the controls would probably be implemented
incorrectly. But I don't see how we're going to stop the surveillance from
happening, so fighting for tight controls on access and stronger
evidentiary and probable cause standards, along with mechanisms for
avoiding parallel construction, seems like our best bet for retaining some
modicum of privacy.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:32 AM douglas rankine <
douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Even worse than I thought...
see url:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive
Security systems crap, information kept for ever on everybody who is
captured by the system. Some of the cameras are accessible from the
internet...if one knows where to look. EFF doing its best to sort out
the worst elements of it.
ATB
Dougie.
On 29/01/2016 16:55, douglas rankine wrote:
see url: http://vigilantsolutions.com/
Nice easy solution to the 4th Amendment rights to privacy etc. Camera
network spreading all over the USA, sells product to law enforcement
as well as business. No need for warrants, for suspicious behaviour,
reasonable suspicion, or car tracking...can follow a car almost
anywhere, whole thing is recorded.
We have APNR on most major routes in the UK, but owned by the state
and is used by law enforcement and for car taxing purposes.
ATB
Dougie.
