This is fear mongering. You could have some person out in the field tailing you and get the same info (maybe even more). You can also put up a camera and tag people as potential DUIs based on how close to the middle of the lane they are driving. So what?
What's important to ask is what can the government do with the data. And NSA or not, what they are can do is limited by the law. No database changes that.
It's not the same goddamn thing. The article describes programmatic policing.
THEY CAN APPLY THESE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION AT ONCE AS THEY ARE NO LONGER LIMITED BY NUMBER OF OFFICERS AVAILABLE.
This carries new, complex risks for society at large. How hard is that to understand? Relying solely on unclear "policy" and "access controls" to protect us from these risks is extremely foolish. Now, I'm not saying this is happening now, or will happen tomorrow. But these thought exercises are very useful and informative.
You're not really explaining what's "foolish" or a "complex risk to society"...
Why is it okay to do it to several thousand people (selected in some non-systematic/statistical process more akin to voodoo than science), but not okay to do to the whole population?
Shouldn't everyone be treated equal? Seems like the way we have it now, if you get on some officials bad side you will get harassed by the TSA and maybe audited (there aren't that many tools at the disposal of the gov't to make your life difficult) And most likely no one will notice or care.
Doesn't that illustrate a more fundamental problem with our laws? And shouldn't we be addressing that?
It's not a serious risk, because people would hate it. If people in your community don't hate this kind of policing and continue to support it with their votes, you can move somewhere else.
Look at the fun local police departments have had trying to install "mere" red light cameras.
Comments
This is fear mongering. You could have some person out in the field tailing you and get the same info (maybe even more). You can also put up a camera and tag people as potential DUIs based on how close to the middle of the lane they are driving. So what?
What's important to ask is what can the government do with the data. And NSA or not, what they are can do is limited by the law. No database changes that.
It's not the same goddamn thing. The article describes programmatic policing.
THEY CAN APPLY THESE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION AT ONCE AS THEY ARE NO LONGER LIMITED BY NUMBER OF OFFICERS AVAILABLE.
This carries new, complex risks for society at large. How hard is that to understand? Relying solely on unclear "policy" and "access controls" to protect us from these risks is extremely foolish. Now, I'm not saying this is happening now, or will happen tomorrow. But these thought exercises are very useful and informative.
You're not really explaining what's "foolish" or a "complex risk to society"...
Why is it okay to do it to several thousand people (selected in some non-systematic/statistical process more akin to voodoo than science), but not okay to do to the whole population?
Shouldn't everyone be treated equal? Seems like the way we have it now, if you get on some officials bad side you will get harassed by the TSA and maybe audited (there aren't that many tools at the disposal of the gov't to make your life difficult) And most likely no one will notice or care.
Doesn't that illustrate a more fundamental problem with our laws? And shouldn't we be addressing that?
It's not a serious risk, because people would hate it. If people in your community don't hate this kind of policing and continue to support it with their votes, you can move somewhere else.
Look at the fun local police departments have had trying to install "mere" red light cameras.