> I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects.

And I don’t. I think my right to privacy shouldn’t arc to nil.

Cops don’t care about stolen cars. Or stolen things from cars. I’ve given them footage of such a crime and.. nada.

And they have armies of police and armament to do the other police work. They have access to individually produced recordings that they do nothing with.

Instead of just dismantling all civic rights for _some_ property rights, maybe we should have a national convention about what police are obligated to do and their best practices to do so. Courts have already established that it is not public safety, so I personally wont support any action that simply gives them more.

> no one but the most online ideologue

> Find a better argument

That is just a reversed no-true-scottsman fallacy. If the poster's "hysterics" are a poor argument, please break down why rather than just calling it silly.

It is obvious that many in this community are against wholesale collection of information, public or private, as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.

We need to prevent the implementation of surveillance technologies that can be abused now, because later when they are weaponized against us we won’t be able to.

Some things are too dangerous to allow to exist, however reasonable and useful they might seem.

"Online" has become such a trite dismissal.

I'm calling out, specifically, that "A camera capturing an image of a license plate that is openly displayed on a vehicle is not searching for someone's private life. It is recording what anyone standing on the same street could already observe."

... implies that a very absurd and objectionable thing like folks standing around each playground recording children and comparing notes is actually also supported by that defense and that we should consider if that defense is objectionable or not based on what it enables as much as what it is defending.

On this very forum, you can find backlash against geofencing, and here, support for flock cameras? The contradiction is bananas. Automated logging of people in public places is dystopian. You can object with that claim, fine.

Yeah except flock is literally photographing children on playgrounds and inside gyms and showing those photos to random people in exactly the way being described.

But sure, "word games". Sure.

Bro when I’m seeing cameras everywhere the last thing I think is “gee what a safe neighborhood I’m in”

So I totally disagree with your arguments on nearly all points, but the fact that no companies prioritize security of data means that this footage WILL get released at some point, which in my opinion overrides ever single argument you made.