I'm curious why there isn't a counter protest that is more extreme.
Set up your own cameras and publish publicly the movements of politicians that claim this is for safety. Nothing illegal about pointing a camera at the entrance to city hall and logging entries and exits of politicians to a website. Hell, afaict, nothing illegal about pointing a camera at their house and doing the same.
Something in the spirit of celebrity jet trackers, but at a local level.
The hardware/software isn't particularly difficult. Some loudmouth like Rossman could get this moving.
You will be arrested for harassing, stalking, and public misconduct (misfeasance primarily), and if that’s not the case, the same legislators will make a new law just for that! It’s a one way justice system, laws apply to the majority but the select few get a pass with all loopholes implemented by the same few.
Possibly charged, but extremely unlikely to have a conviction stick if done intelligently. It would be a pretty massive Streisand effect, and almost certainly covered under first amendment protections.
Anyone can publish a livestream of anything visible from public by the naked eye. Why would using machine vision on that livestream to highlight public officials change anything.
It’s literally the same laws that let flock operate, and exactly what they and other ALPR companies are already doing silently.
They’ll use whatever laws they can and you’ll get imprisoned. They don’t play by the rules. They’ll just ignore that you were doing that for a political purpose and call you a pervert or terrorist or something. You can’t think your way out of authoritarianism with intelligence.
> Last month, Mayor Carmella Mantello, flanked by officers in blue, accused the city council of “defunding” the police and declared a state of emergency to keep the cameras running, a designation usually reserved for floods and blizzards. “I will not put our city in jeopardy and take these cameras away,” she said.
The lengths that this Mayor goes to to keep the cameras on raises suspicion.
I had to navigate around Troy when visiting Vermont because of these cameras. It wasn't trivial due to the river crossing.
There's a very small number of people committing crimes worthy of these cameras, and there's also a small number of people not willing to do business with clients of camera purveyors.
When some cities hid cell towers by making them look like trees it was part of a "beautification process", but you're right. I am just curious if any towns have tried it not counting San Diego putting microphones in the newer LED street lights.
Most of the camera's on my property are hidden but that is to get license plates of porch pirates.
I'm curious why there isn't a counter protest that is more extreme.
Set up your own cameras and publish publicly the movements of politicians that claim this is for safety. Nothing illegal about pointing a camera at the entrance to city hall and logging entries and exits of politicians to a website. Hell, afaict, nothing illegal about pointing a camera at their house and doing the same.
Something in the spirit of celebrity jet trackers, but at a local level.
The hardware/software isn't particularly difficult. Some loudmouth like Rossman could get this moving.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?
You will be arrested for harassing, stalking, and public misconduct (misfeasance primarily), and if that’s not the case, the same legislators will make a new law just for that! It’s a one way justice system, laws apply to the majority but the select few get a pass with all loopholes implemented by the same few.
Possibly charged, but extremely unlikely to have a conviction stick if done intelligently. It would be a pretty massive Streisand effect, and almost certainly covered under first amendment protections.
Anyone can publish a livestream of anything visible from public by the naked eye. Why would using machine vision on that livestream to highlight public officials change anything.
It’s literally the same laws that let flock operate, and exactly what they and other ALPR companies are already doing silently.
They’ll use whatever laws they can and you’ll get imprisoned. They don’t play by the rules. They’ll just ignore that you were doing that for a political purpose and call you a pervert or terrorist or something. You can’t think your way out of authoritarianism with intelligence.
This comment adds nothing new to the conversation. It is simply a rephrasing of the exact same thing said by GP. Read my prior response.
> Last month, Mayor Carmella Mantello, flanked by officers in blue, accused the city council of “defunding” the police and declared a state of emergency to keep the cameras running, a designation usually reserved for floods and blizzards. “I will not put our city in jeopardy and take these cameras away,” she said. The lengths that this Mayor goes to to keep the cameras on raises suspicion.
The lengths that this Mayor goes to to keep the cameras on raises suspicion.
I find it suspicious that this story doesn't show up in HN's search function. But that's just me.
Oh, wait: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
Maybe loosen the tinfoil hat a bit? This story is the first result for me, and all I did was search for the headline:
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=ai+license+plate+cameras
Your search came three hours after my comment.
I had to navigate around Troy when visiting Vermont because of these cameras. It wasn't trivial due to the river crossing.
There's a very small number of people committing crimes worthy of these cameras, and there's also a small number of people not willing to do business with clients of camera purveyors.
Have any towns tried putting most of the cameras in functional bird feeders, bird boxes and other decorative objects? If so did anyone notice them?
Nothing says "these are for legitimate purposes and your safety" like hidden surveillance networks.
When some cities hid cell towers by making them look like trees it was part of a "beautification process", but you're right. I am just curious if any towns have tried it not counting San Diego putting microphones in the newer LED street lights.
Most of the camera's on my property are hidden but that is to get license plates of porch pirates.
Disguising normal infrastructure seems radically different than hiding private contractor’s public surveillance cameras.
Hiding surveillance cameras on your own property is fine, although I wonder how much you are losing out on deterrence effects.