Hacker News Reader

Comment by fitblipper | Hacker News Reader

Just this morning I listened to an EFF podcast episode (Effector) about how license plate readers tend to suffer from mission creep. They might be deployed for one of the "reasonable" purposes you list but when the tool is available to lawenforcement it almost always becomes used for more and more purposes, like the example given in the article about tracking a woman who had an abortion.

The problem with these types of tools are that they provide a foothold into absolute enforcement, not just for current laws you find reasonable, but for all future laws from all future administrations which may not be reasonable.

Why should these cameras used for speeding enforcement today be used to track down protesters the admin decides to label as terrorists or legal immigrants who attended a pro Palestine rally tomorrow? They shouldn't.

What would stop that from happening? Nothing.

View on HN

As usual, it's a question of balance. In a country where people trust the government enough, or at least trust the system of checks and balances that must keep the government at bay, the idea of the benefits provided by proper use of the cameras outweighs the fear of the scope creep.

In a country where people expect the government to act unreasonably and to flout legal constraints, the fear of the scope creep and total surveillance outweighs the perceived benefits of legitimate use.

By answering this question, it's easy to determine how people feel about their country :-/

Look at what is happening in the UK where they "trust their government".

You have 10k+ arrest a year for social media posts. I'm sure most people also thought the initial legal precedent was reasonable.

I don't think there's actually a lot more trust; rather it's possibly fewer checks and balances.

Not that I like surveillance capitalism but...

If a ALPR search was gated by a search warrant, upon probable cause by witness and signed by judge, I would have much less concern. Its still surveillance capitalism, but that at least would be due process.

USC 1983 prevents that from happening.

Might be nitpicking, but USC 1983 does not prevent anything, it is an attempt at restitution after the fact, and even then, when qualified immunity in play the efficacy of even that is questionable.

What does it cost a police force to abuse this technology? Maybe down the road they'll have to spend an afternoon in court explaining how they were just following orders or they were doing as directed by the department's policies at the time. What does it cost a citizen? Beyond the legal costs, it could cost their job when they don't show up because they were unjustly arrested, it could be a chilling effect on their speech when they see their politically active neighbor targeted.

I stand by my statement that nothing prevents the creep from happening. There is no realized cost to those who make it happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com