ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
37% Positive
Analyzed from 1396 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#data#police#flock#public#license#don#plate#every#privacy#cops
Discussion (54 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
So did we kill a legislation that would have blocked Police license plate readers and Flock?
Or because the legislation is killed, we can block Police license plate readers and flock?
> IPVM verified that a bipartisan amendment that would have effectively blocked police LPR programs nationwide was killed at a House committee markup on May 21, 2026.
Maybe the minimal edit is something like:
“Killed Legislation Would Have Effectively Blocked Police LPR, Including Flock”
> A recipient of assistance under title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.
Okay, I'm glad that's killed. I love the speed cameras near my home. And hopefully the future has every red-light backed by a red-light camera.
Just yesterday, flock helped police catch a dude who shot two women and was on the run https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/napa-road-rage-sho....
There's no expectation of privacy on public roads, but there are angry people behind 2 ton death machines.
"Kill switches" are too much, but license plate readers are not.
If we are to maintain our liberty, the vast power such a surveillance apparatus should either not exist or only be accessible through an adversarial court system (i.e. a search warrant).
(1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo...
(2) https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...
(3) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...
This would move society in a positive direction.
Making the data itself a Taboo, just to avoid jailing bad cops, does not.
We are truly creating the chains that will bind us by allowing these kinds of tools to exist. And for what? We managed for generations to do policing without LPRs. Are we so drowning in crime that we should create universal surveillance as a solution?
Cops, who commit domestic violence that rate at least twice that of the general public, misuse ALPR's to stalk women.
But I will accept an example of any punishment for any misuse as a sign that such punishment could actually happen.
just say you're not being serious and save us the time.
Everyone wants "privacy" but nobody is willing to give up the government's ability to cheaply go after whatever class of petty deviant they personally hate to get it. So we get this stupid situation where the sum total of the political will is enough to keep these programs alive even if the cumulative result is indefensible.
The HN demographics are a prime example. They'll complain about data dragnets in the ICE thread and coo about how savvy the IRS or the EPA or whatever other agency they like are for using their own data haystack to comb for deviants. Now multiply by every other demographic and every other issue. That's why this stuff sticks around.
If people had some goddamn principals and said "this is wrong even if causes I care about are advanced by it" over time politicians would get elected in part by pandering to those people and at the margin some amount of shit would get done. But they don't, so it doesnn't.
(1) Entities creating these data sets should require licenses to do so. (2) Creation of real-time location data sets would itself be a criminal offense without a license. (3) Data would need to be encrypted and stored according to a set of best practices. Failure to do so would be a criminal offense. (4) Access to data would be available through a court, ideally with the judge literally controlling access to the cryptographic keys. (5) Accessing the data without permission would be a criminal offense. (6) You would probably need to add civil penalties not subject to sovereign immunity. Otherwise cops would just ignore the law about unauthorized access and then also fail to prosecute themselves.
Or you know we could just make them illegal altogether (including the ones the cell phone company creates for advertisers). Much simpler!
Whether there is an expectation of privacy can't be what matters, what matters has to be whether the total effect allows a level of control that is dangerous or might have chilling effects on speech or on participation in things that are controversial.
That's not what the killed legislation did, though.
Along a similar line, speed limits should be reduced to 35mph maximum for non-emergency traffic, it would save thousands of pointless deaths every year.
But the small harm of time wasted in traffic is -worth- the. sacrifice of thousands of lives, as it turn out.
Nor when I pass a flock camera.
You are boxing with phantoms, I think.
You are not, or at least, you think you are not.
How far removed are we from the federal government revoking the passports of everyone who attended a No Kings rally, anywhere in the country?
Yet. The jewish people had no problem that the government had detailed lists including the religion. It helped the Nazis killing many jews. Total surveillance will always be abused like every other invasive law.
First it’s against child abuse and terrorist, then organized crime, then crimes like theft, then littering and jaywalking, then swearing in public
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin
Would also help prevent and solve crimes. No privacy on public roads.
There is also something like proportionality.
Of course we have to strike a balance. We just disagree on where "cameras on a public road" fall on the scale.
If someone proved he can’t handle a car you wouldn’t give him a truck, would you?
This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
When someone with access-- potentially LEO but the access set is much larger-- uses the data to stalk and harass someone you'll usually never know that the ALPR camera was the data source.
So its easy to overstate the contribution and understate the harm.
But if you talk a step back you can see the dramatic change being made to our world: making it impossible to go about your life without being constantly tracked, cataloged, and having your history made available to who knows who, for who knows what purpose, for who knows how long (but probably forever).
This is a load bearing component of your argument and it seems thin.
From my perspective, you are synthesizing a harm while ignoring the clear and concrete contribution.