KingGimpicus comments on Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (11 children)

They dont need a warrant for a plate that is visible from public. If your car was locked up in a garage, that would be a different story. Taking your car out in public is the same as taking your face out in public legally speaking.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

That really needs to change also. That made sense back when it was just recording something in public that a random officer could have seen, but it’s no longer the same thing. No police force could have such large scale comprehensive surveillance and recording based on what an officer could have seen in public .

The fact that you could even have an officer overstep his authority to stalk someone one nationwide for personal reasons, is not just a failure of privacy safeguards, but proof that large scale surveillance is not the same as “what any random officer could have seen”

There needs to be a threshold, beyond which a warrant is required

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

You are correct in theory. In reality, its messy.

The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.

Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.

The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where "the cops look this way too much" has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it'd be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.

My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that's what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

Clearly the private ownership is part of this dystopia. Even if we were to place limits or safeguards on this surveillance, it probably won’t apply to purchasing private databases

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

You what really works? Having a law on the books that plainly states the "the driver must be ticketed". And NOT the vehicle. So unless they pull the car over and hand the ticket to whoever is driving, they can't use cameras for that purpose.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Cool, so anyone who can afford a self driving car is immune to tickets and traffic citations. Very bourgeois.

Ticketing a car is a good practice to avoid police interaction, which is the real danger in this country. The burden of proof still applies in court, so even if you did get a "phantom" ticket, they still have to prove you were in control of the vehicle at the time. I recently got a red light camera ticket on a rental thrown out because I showed i turned in the vehicle 4 hours before the time of the infraction. Goddamn Hertz tried to throw me under the bus. Always keep your receipts.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

You were lucky. What would have you done if you couldn't prove you no longer had possession of the car? If they had ticketed the driver directly, none of that could have happened to you. There would have been nothing for you to prove.This is why the state I live in has had that law requiring ticketing the actual driver and not the car decades before traffic cameras were even a thing.

And since there are no self driving cars that can be commonly found on the roads today, that's a silly idea. And IF that time ever comes, someone is still going to need to be liable for that self driving car as it goes down the road. That software is going to be so locked down it must follow all laws without exception. Because the company will hold the liability.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

I literally say "save your receipts" at the end of my post and you come back with "well what if you couldn't prove it?"

Thats what court is for.

Are you saying we should implicitly trust what a cop says just because they happened to be around to write a ticket? What makes an officers testimony more reliable than a photograph or video? In my state, cops arent even allowed to pull people over for minor traffic infractions anymore because they cant seem to stop targeting black and brown people. Do you think that's somehow better than a speed camera or red light cam that doesnt care if the person driving is white or not?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

Court is time consuming and expensive. You lose a day's wages, you get probably get fined anyway, and you may also need to pay a lawyer and court costs. So you assume everyone can afford that? White or Black?

It must be nice to have that extra money.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent