Love this idea. If it's visible or audible in public,it's legal to record. It's a fine line against stalking, so maybe do it with a few hundred of your friends.

Even privatebjets emit a transponder signal. I wonder how hard it would be to sniff this out of the air. Maybe some of our HAM friends would know.

Of course, obligatory IANAL.

It's about as much privacy as shutting the blinds. Maybe less. It's not much, but it's not nothing. I was hoping others would share links to the other street view services' blur request form.

I can't figure this out. They say that you can redact your name and financial stuff. The only thing they'd know is your house, (throw away) email and gas provider. What am I missing?

I've read that the last time any consumer privacy laws were enacted at the federal level, it was in the 1980s when a video store clerk sold a politician's embarrassing video rental history to a newspaper.

I'm wondering if any politician who drives a car past one of these things has gone anywhere that they'd not like the public to know about.

I wondered about this for cars and ALPR cameras. Could you cover your car in license plates and overwhelm the cameras?

IANAL and you should do your own research, but my understanding of the dangers of something like a Flock camera is that it's a private company who surveils citizens and compiles the data into something that law enforcement can purchase without a warrant, effectively circumventing Americans' 4th amendment rights. In this case, it's a city device that can host a camera. I believe that the city would not be able to perform warrantless mass surveilence using these devices the same way that a private company can. I believe it's similar to those cameras on traffic signals that monitor the performance of the intersection but not perform ALPR data collection. It's a subtle but important difference.

I may have no idea what I'm talking about also, so if you are an authority on these matters or someone with industry knowledge, please correct me.

They're expanding their footprint around me. The city and adjacent city both have contracts and several retailers have them at all entrances. I tried to see if I could add the locations to deflock via street complete but then realized that I can't log the sites when (safely) driving.

I saw a show about self defense for women in NY city. The instructor said to always carry a sucker. One of those tootsie pops or the like. If in trouble, hold the ball in your hand, turn the stick outward, between your middle and ring finger and punch at something soft and fleshy like stomach or face (eyes, mouth). It's nice because it works everywhere. Even the TSA will let you board a plane with a sucker.

Thanks for posting a reference.

The bill aims to ... disable "addicting" design features to minors.

Why only to minors? Don't all people deserve protections from knowingly addictive things?

I can't lead an effort to push the local govn't to do something like this. I just don't have the charisma, but I would definitely join the cause. I was a part of a club once to overturn a law in a nearby city. It was interesting to see how it all worked.

I've been thinking about these, but worried that they're not legal.

I daydream that this guy will threaten to sue the police and they'll come to an agreement to take down all all the cameras. The citizens will be so happy that they'll go to the state legislature and pass a law to forbid warrantless surveilence. The state will rejoice and their congressional representatives will pass a law country wide. The trend will continue globally.