“The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois.”
If you’re in either of these states, please contact your attorney general. Flock Safety should bear some liability (or at least have to suffer investigations).
zzo38computer · 1d ago
Mass surveillance is the problem, whether or not she got an abortion. Abortion is not the real issue with this.
You could do car pooling to make it somewhat more difficult to be tracked by the license plate (the car can be tracked but you may be in someone else's car) (and car pooling can have other benefits as well if done well rather than badly), but that won't solve it. Reducing the mass surveillance is what should be done to solve it (regardless of your opinions about abortion).
qwerty456127 · 1d ago
Better avoid living in states (not only American) which claim a right to surveil, let alone decide what takes place within your body. If your state issues such a law - run, it is fascist now, no matter how nice it seems in other aspects so far.
ourmandave · 1d ago
EFF has long warned about the dangers of ALPRs, which scan license plates, log time and location data, and build a detailed picture of people's movements.
That wasn't me driving your honor. My 3-year-old must have got a hold of my keys and went for a joy ride up I-5.
Somehow missed these when I went searching prior to submission.
xhkkffbf · 1d ago
The headline is kind of sensationalist. There are networks of automated plate readers and they can be searched globally. It's pretty clear that any cop that uses these systems to track down anyone is using 89000 cameras. I would be surprised if they limited their use to abortion.
redserk · 1d ago
This is a bizarrely pedantic critique of the headline.
“Action happened. A state used network of cameras outside of that state’s borders.” seems like a reasonable template to describe what happened.
haswell · 1d ago
Look at it through this lens: the EFF is seeking to educate the public on the dangers of mass surveillance.
The HN crowd is disproportionately aware of how such systems operate and their implications, while the public has little understanding of it.
The headline summarizes the issue very succinctly. What is the issue? Installing massive networks of surveillance gear will eventually erode freedoms and impact people in ways that many people would disagree with. Regardless of how "standard" the described usage of the system might be, the fact remains that the mechanisms available to agencies now are pretty stunning in their scale and reach, and that much of the public is unaware, doesn't care because they don't know enough to care, or believes such a system would never be misused.
nixpulvis · 1d ago
Classic, tech is tech so what are laws argument.
isaacremuant · 1d ago
I think it's important to do so people, maybe the ones that reply to you, can pretend there's a particular importance to it and not focus on the surveillance technique itself. It's a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" situation for many partisan people.
They don't really care about massive surveillance or extremely concentrated power as long as it serves their interest. When it doesn't, the complain but rarely want to focus on the core of the problem.
If you’re in either of these states, please contact your attorney general. Flock Safety should bear some liability (or at least have to suffer investigations).
You could do car pooling to make it somewhat more difficult to be tracked by the license plate (the car can be tracked but you may be in someone else's car) (and car pooling can have other benefits as well if done well rather than badly), but that won't solve it. Reducing the mass surveillance is what should be done to solve it (regardless of your opinions about abortion).
That wasn't me driving your honor. My 3-year-old must have got a hold of my keys and went for a joy ride up I-5.
Source days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44128923
“Action happened. A state used network of cameras outside of that state’s borders.” seems like a reasonable template to describe what happened.
The HN crowd is disproportionately aware of how such systems operate and their implications, while the public has little understanding of it.
The headline summarizes the issue very succinctly. What is the issue? Installing massive networks of surveillance gear will eventually erode freedoms and impact people in ways that many people would disagree with. Regardless of how "standard" the described usage of the system might be, the fact remains that the mechanisms available to agencies now are pretty stunning in their scale and reach, and that much of the public is unaware, doesn't care because they don't know enough to care, or believes such a system would never be misused.
They don't really care about massive surveillance or extremely concentrated power as long as it serves their interest. When it doesn't, the complain but rarely want to focus on the core of the problem.