Comment by toomuchtodo
2 days ago
Legislation guardrails around surveillance technology are a necessary component to defend against future corporate surveillance apparatus establishment and operation, as this surveillance could take many forms (video, audio, geolocation, RF signatures, etc). Flock and Axon today, whatever unsavory folks come along in the future.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.” —- John Maynard Keynes
Guardrails because we cannot trust the human.
Gov. Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras - https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senato...
Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras.
In this thread, two posts up: people who want more powerful governments claim that "capitalism" is to blame for this state of affairs.
As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades?
I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint.
I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.”
The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.
> the data processing
Maybe?
> restricted retention period
Prior restraint.
> no data sharing off the premises
1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press?
Good luck.
2 replies →