Even this isn't true (unless you meant morally, which I can't agree with) in the USA. There are times and situations where you absolutely have a right to privacy in public. For example, the government still needs a warrant to listen to you on a phone call in a public phone booth. The government needs a warrant to attach a gps tracker to your car even if it's on the public streets.
Personally, I would love extending protections against private corporations (not just government), and prevent the storage and aggregation of surveillance sensor data.
I meant practically the right to privacy is wrong: I should have the right but I don't expect it. Similar to not being robbed is a right, but I don't expect it at times and in all locations.
I mean, you wouldn't mind if I followed you everywhere then, right? And waiting outside your home when you're inside. They call that stalking. Doing that systematically to everybody doesn't make it ok.
Plainly, I think it makes sense to not be constantly in view of a single entity when in public.
This is why the courts have not ruled it a violation. It’s not following you. Not literally taking precise measurements of your position. It’s not even you, nor could it be proven you are even driving in the majority of cases. It’s an image of the rear of a car. Only while passing a stationary point.
What is to be decided, is how many single points does it take to be considered “precise” measurement. If I put a camera every 500ft of roadway, is it tracking how? Probably. Still not your though, it’s a car. Is a car an extension of you? Do your rights extend to the car?
In case law, even though a phone is not you, it’s considered an extension of you. A car is not. A phones location data continues even when in the privacy of your home, or in a private building. A church, a hospital, whatever.
That is why cellular gps data requires a warrant.
Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.
Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.
It might as well be the same for all intents and purposes though. If you place a Flock camera every 100m, the accuracy effectively becomes <50m. You can reveal basically every outdoor movement of a human with that level of precision.
Across weeks and months it can be used to profile you. The statistical analysis capabilities are insane. It also is not just "license plates" its everything. How you look, how you walk, your clothing, everything gets captured.
These cameras aren't just placed on road sides, the capture footpaths, parks, entries to peoples home, swimming pools even!
My building already has cameras at the entrances and in the halls. Doesn't bother me.
Abuse is possible, but I don't see why we can't limit it with laws and regulations. And the potential gains in terms of preventing crime and catching criminals are huge.
When there are other things we could be spending effort on that don't entail mass surveillance, why are you so interested in it being done with AI cameras? Besides, it's still only reactive. You'll still have criminals but you'll catch them a bit more often. You're not addressing the root issues that cause crime.
Comments
Policies to limit misuse should be adopted. But the idea that you have a right to privacy while in public is wrong and bad.
I would say that the right to privacy is wrong but it's not bad. Mass surveillance is dangerous. It back fired spectacularly in like what happened in Iran: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/03/middleeast/us-israel-plot-kil...
Even this isn't true (unless you meant morally, which I can't agree with) in the USA. There are times and situations where you absolutely have a right to privacy in public. For example, the government still needs a warrant to listen to you on a phone call in a public phone booth. The government needs a warrant to attach a gps tracker to your car even if it's on the public streets.
Personally, I would love extending protections against private corporations (not just government), and prevent the storage and aggregation of surveillance sensor data.
I meant practically the right to privacy is wrong: I should have the right but I don't expect it. Similar to not being robbed is a right, but I don't expect it at times and in all locations.
On the contrary, you should absolutely have a right to not be pervasively tracked and surveilled.
The idea that our government should surveil us is wrong and bad.
Yeah, that should be reserved for apple and google! /s
How about none of the above?
I mean, you wouldn't mind if I followed you everywhere then, right? And waiting outside your home when you're inside. They call that stalking. Doing that systematically to everybody doesn't make it ok.
Plainly, I think it makes sense to not be constantly in view of a single entity when in public.
This is why the courts have not ruled it a violation. It’s not following you. Not literally taking precise measurements of your position. It’s not even you, nor could it be proven you are even driving in the majority of cases. It’s an image of the rear of a car. Only while passing a stationary point.
What is to be decided, is how many single points does it take to be considered “precise” measurement. If I put a camera every 500ft of roadway, is it tracking how? Probably. Still not your though, it’s a car. Is a car an extension of you? Do your rights extend to the car?
In case law, even though a phone is not you, it’s considered an extension of you. A car is not. A phones location data continues even when in the privacy of your home, or in a private building. A church, a hospital, whatever.
That is why cellular gps data requires a warrant.
Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.
It might as well be the same for all intents and purposes though. If you place a Flock camera every 100m, the accuracy effectively becomes <50m. You can reveal basically every outdoor movement of a human with that level of precision.
Across weeks and months it can be used to profile you. The statistical analysis capabilities are insane. It also is not just "license plates" its everything. How you look, how you walk, your clothing, everything gets captured.
These cameras aren't just placed on road sides, the capture footpaths, parks, entries to peoples home, swimming pools even!
My building already has cameras at the entrances and in the halls. Doesn't bother me.
Abuse is possible, but I don't see why we can't limit it with laws and regulations. And the potential gains in terms of preventing crime and catching criminals are huge.
Violent crime has been slowly declining for many decades
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/violent-crime-rate-us
When there are other things we could be spending effort on that don't entail mass surveillance, why are you so interested in it being done with AI cameras? Besides, it's still only reactive. You'll still have criminals but you'll catch them a bit more often. You're not addressing the root issues that cause crime.