Why don't the cops get a search warrant for that USB drive and take that rather than confiscating the entire vehicle of innocent people?
But in general, this isn't really much new. If you have home cameras, and police can obtain a search warrant, then you can be compelled to provide the video, or they can seize any device (such as entire computer, your server closet, etc) that could reasonably contain the video.
I would have thought this was the path of least resistance (as well as doing less harm to the car owner) since they're getting a search warrant anyway.
But if that doesn't work, then preserving evidence is considered to be very important. For example, it would be a problem if the car owner deleted the video.
But Tesla should add remote wipe too, just like with iPhones.
Which only underlines my other comment here, that this is a great reason to not own a Tesla.
That would require a search warrant, something the comment you're replying to already mentioned. Search warrants typically specify the means of access.
Yes but the police can't start occupying my house or deny me access to it because I wasn't home to let them in.
With a search warrant, they can. You can be kept out of your home until they complete the search and seizing of the items named in the warrant. Depending on what is being searched for (excavating your basement looking for bodies?) that could take quite some time.
So the Tesla situation getting press isn't because the precedent is new, it's because most Americans (many in this thread included) don't understand what the law has already been since long before Teslas ever existed, and are surprised at what they find.
A judge made a decision that past jurisprudence applies to towing cars that happen to have cameras nearby, nobody was doing it until that first warrant got signed.
In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.
Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
- you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop)
- You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here)
- You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).
This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.
I agree with you that this ubiquitous surveillance is detestable, but that's a whole different discussion.
If you are somewhere where you might expect that people could see you, don’t pretend that they are supposed to not see you, or to forget what they saw. Thinking ypeopleshould have that kind of control over other people’s memories, even if stored in their stuff, seems dystopian.
This is in no way equivalent to video recording.
> widespread neuralink
At this time, I don't see any reason to think this is a thing that neuralink or similar will be able to accomplish anytime soon. Massive video surveillance, on the other hand, is a problem that actually exists right now.