back

by LazyMans·2d ago·view on hn ↗
This is why the courts have not ruled it a violation. It’s not following you. Not literally taking precise measurements of your position. It’s not even you, nor could it be proven you are even driving in the majority of cases. It’s an image of the rear of a car. Only while passing a stationary point.

What is to be decided, is how many single points does it take to be considered “precise” measurement. If I put a camera every 500ft of roadway, is it tracking how? Probably. Still not your though, it’s a car. Is a car an extension of you? Do your rights extend to the car?

In case law, even though a phone is not you, it’s considered an extension of you. A car is not. A phones location data continues even when in the privacy of your home, or in a private building. A church, a hospital, whatever.

That is why cellular gps data requires a warrant.

Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.

1 comments
>Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.

It might as well be the same for all intents and purposes though. If you place a Flock camera every 100m, the accuracy effectively becomes <50m. You can reveal basically every outdoor movement of a human with that level of precision.

Across weeks and months it can be used to profile you. The statistical analysis capabilities are insane. It also is not just "license plates" its everything. How you look, how you walk, your clothing, everything gets captured.

These cameras aren't just placed on road sides, the capture footpaths, parks, entries to peoples home, swimming pools even!