Comment by pj_mukh
5 hours ago
>> "which would prohibit federal agencies from using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs)"
...yup makes sense, no reason for federal governments to have unfettered access to this data.
>> "and block federal funding from state and local governments that use the cameras."
Wait..what? Why put this silly Poison Pill in the bill? So a city can't enforce its own traffic laws without having to put an over-zealous police force in the loop? The same guy that is handling drug dealers is stopping you for traffic tickets and people think nothing should go wrong?
Without cities adopting some massive road diet (fat chance) a reduction in ALPR's will kill people. Traffic deaths are at the same level as gun deaths in the USA.
It's one of the standard ways of prohibiting states from doing something, in order to enforce individual rights. Within the federal government, it can be harder to say "states may not" and easier to say "we won't give any money to states that". I'm glad to see these cameras prohibited locally, so that Flock and others can't just go shop it around to jurisdictions until they find one scared enough to buy.
As currently written in the Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Merkley bill that funding cut provision is unconstitutional. Such provisions can only cut funding for things that are at least somewhat related to what the bill is regulating.
As written, it cuts off funding from entire agencies. For example it cuts DHS funds, which would include Medicaid reimbursements to the state for its health services to low-income residents. There is no way to make a case that Medicaid funding is in any way related to ALPR regulation.
The bill also is way too loose in its definitions. As written if someone reported a stolen car, gave the license plate, an officer entered that into a database of stolen cars, later another officer pulled over a car for speeding, entered its plate into the computer in their squad car, the computer looked it up in the database of stolen cars and generated an alert--that would count as using an ALPR and be at odds with the bill.
ALPR's pre-date Flock. The bill never mentions the brand "Flock". You could trivially mandate some stringent data retention policies, block cross-camera tracking if you really want, but just like his AI bill, a blanket ban is all this wing of the party can think of?
It's DOA, it'll never pass. He has the mandate to actually fix the privacy issue and he's p*ssing it away.
> You could trivially mandate some stringent data retention policies, block cross-camera tracking if you really want,
...or ban them. Just ban them. Let's have less surveillance.
The pro surveillance side keeps ratcheting things upwards and moving the Overton window. Let's claw some things back.
1 reply →
Hawley is the guy who was tweeting campaign emails during J6 while hiding in the corner... color me surprised.
2 replies →
> Why put this silly Poison Pill in the bill?
Because then the states would install the flock cameras and "forget" to block the feds from accessing them:
> ...yup makes sense, no reason for federal governments to have unfettered access to this data.