545
Federal Judge Rules a Flock Search Was ‘Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance’ and Unconstitutional: it’s one of the first times a federal judge has decided Flock searches can be unconstitutional. (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 29 points 1 day ago (1 child)

That's great, but the mass surveillance definition also fits Google, Meta, and so much of the internet.

The ALPR data is being collected and stored constantly. Does it only become mass surveillance if law enforcement searches it.? That is the next thing to consider IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 23 hours ago*

    I think we need stronger legal protections against searching our data, even when we put it into the custody of others.

    For example, I would like to have security cameras that record to the cloud, but all the big NVR providers will cough up data to law enforcement upon request. That means that a Ring/Nest camera is effectively a police camera.

    But that's bullshit, because the best place to store security camera storage is somewhere other than the property you are surveilling, but I still want my goddamned privacy at home!

    So I can either run Chinese network security nightmare cameras whose operators are outside of my jurisdiction, or I can run standard RTSP to my own cloud VPS and hope that it's harder for the police to get their hands on that footage since I am the NVR operator and can encrypt my footage at rest.

    The VPS option I chose is also the most expensive option, and it wasn't easy to set up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent