Missouri governor orders guardrails on Flock cameras and ALPRs
stlpr.org
stlpr.org
You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.
So in other words, nothing happened.
It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security.
We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.
Willfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
How many mean things should people be allowed to say about the president before you deem it excessive?
Regulation of speech is plainly unconstitutional. Regulation of commercial stalking may involve speech, but a balancing test would likely find that it’s primarily a question of commerce.
The scale argument is the justification for creating the law in the first place, not what makes it legal or illegal. Yes, most people do think that scale makes things worse due to the increased effects. Mass murder is worse than regular murder, mass dumping is worse than throwing a single battery into a lake, etc. That’s why laws often take scale into account or create different offenses specifically based on scale.
How have you stopped crime and corruption by recording people without their knowledge?
There’s no restrictions on private ALPRs in MO resulting from this executive order.
An executive order is a directive for government agencies under the executive branch, not private organizations.
It’s against the rules to ask if you read the article, so I won’t do that.
And I say this as a life-long Missouri resident and Mizzou grad.
P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.