(I am aware that the UK has a less-than-stellar privacy track record... but nonetheless it's curious that for this particular technology, as opposed to the Online Safety Act, there's such a difference.)
(I am aware that the UK has a less-than-stellar privacy track record... but nonetheless it's curious that for this particular technology, as opposed to the Online Safety Act, there's such a difference.)
The US has also shown that the probability of someone being held accountable for massive abuse of power is essentially 0. This also means that the main disincentive for abusing power (getting caught and punished in some way) is a moot point.
People generally don't object to technology being used to fine mass shooters, or terrorists, or bank robbers. They do object to the same technology being used to stalk women that Texas thinks might be trying to get an abortion, or ensure that minorities stay out of the "white neighborhoods". One of these examples is a real thing, the other is what people are (reasonably) afraid of.
The US had only about a hundred years to get used to bending over and taking it from a government that doesn't really represent the people whereas the British have just shy of a thousand. So of course the US is more uppity.
Our police overlords are not so polite.
In the UK there's severe limitations on freedom of speech, which would never be accepted in the US. The countries have very different values.
Sure, but those are just as controversial here as in the US, in a way that ANPR is a non-issue.
[1] https://www.404media.co/clapping-is-a-first-amendment-right-...