It keeps getting better and better.


"If you thought flock was bad, check out Leonardo SignalTrace - this is stalking on a whole new level"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxVdNKkjy4

^^^^Thats what it’s all about. There seems to be little incentive to solve actual crime. It’s not profitable and it’s much easy to harass normal folks.

quote:

to harass normal folks

To me, having cameras recording every move you make is no different than actually following somebody around.

It's stalking, and needs to be illegal.

Here's a piece of truly shocking news. Who could have ever predicted something like this happening?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipDbl0k4LL0

"2 more metro Atlanta deputies arrested, accused of misusing license plate reader by sheriff’s dept."

They'll subsidize 1000 more flock cameras and data centers to store the video before fixing a single pothole.

Next stop: ALPRs on school buses.

quote:

A company that sells cameras to catch drivers illegally passing stopped school buses wants to turn them into license plate readers.

From The Drive.

quote:

a new investor is pushing the company to find alternate revenue streams, and that the company is already conducting tests with one school bus, with plans to deploy 100 license-plate-reading cameras on school buses by the end of next month.

If BusPatrol goes ahead with this plan, these cameras would join an already-dense surveillance net that can track people’s movements by reading license plates or the signals from electronic devices. The companies selling these cameras have built a business around selling data to law enforcement, who can then use it despite the fact that it was obtained without a warrant. Because, as security expert Matt Hurewitz explained on The Drivecast, “the laws are way behind” this tech.

I wonder how (or if) this ruling will apply to these surveillance cameras.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/n...18-b9d8-8b6ff92bd8bc

Supreme Court says geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment in Chatrie v. United States ruling
The Supreme Court case involves a bank robbery, cellphone data and a debate over whether U.S. citizens have a right to privacy for their location data.

WASHINGTON — By a vote of 6 to 3, the justices ruled that geofence warrants violated the Fourth Amendment, siding with a plaintiff in a key privacy ruling.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. For background on the case, read below.

Chatrie v. United States is a case that focuses on the constitutionality of law enforcement agencies using "geofence warrants" to determine who was in a particular location at a particular time.