This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.
Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
Neat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong.
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.
Well, I'll be damned, we finally did something smart in our state legislature. This definitely feels like a "The worst person you know made a good point", but that's me assuming Jason Osborne was in favor.
Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.
> The order directs the Missouri Department of Public Safety to create safeguards for state agencies and state-funded law enforcement departments using the automatic license plate readers.
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 imply you didn’t read the article, so I won’t do that.
fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.
The problem in the US is that the "photography in public" right, and expectation of privacy rules are deeply entwined with the first amendment. You have to deal with the practicality of what is most likely the most universally popular amendment, and also deal with the fallout of handing a weapon to those that want to squelch free speech and free press.
Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock.
P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
18 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 7.8 ms ] threadWillfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
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.
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 imply you didn’t read the article, so I won’t do that.
P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
So in other words, nothing happened.