(10-29-2025, 08:21 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrews...-powerful/
(archive link if that's paywalled for you) https://archive.ph/Rf65d

Someone was mentioning that we live in a police state, and that's a bit hyperbolic, but it is true if you look at how much surveillance there is of the general public, as compared to the past.

Does anyone know what these are being used for?

Here is a map where you can see some of the ALRPs (Automatic License Plate Readers) near you:
https://deflock.me/map

The issue is not individual cameras, it is the integration and the access by police and state.

And, where these public facing, privately owned cams can be accessed remotely by police and state without a court order, that is police state level surveillance.

It always shocks me how far behind the UK American is with this kind of surveillance stuff and banking.

The UK has had licence plate scanners for 25 years that I know of , even in the small city I live in they  had cameras hidden everywhere and I do mean everywhere, I worked at a small city centre cop station where all the screens were and was blown away with Where they were long before they started appearing visable on the streets to the public they have Stingray tech in all the big CCTV  street cameras and are years ahead of what the public think. 

And add in the argus drones the government bought in 2006-7 and that was back when cameras were 2 or so mega pixels , now they can zoom into the stitching on your trainers, follow you with the chip in your bank card and cell phones and ping all the hidden stuff you have in clothes you buy lol.

Big brother has been watching a LONG time

(10-29-2025, 08:00 PM)chr0naut Wrote: The issue is not individual cameras, it is the integration and the access by police and state.

And, where these public facing, privately owned cams can be accessed remotely by police and state without a court order, that is police state level surveillance.

There's three options:

1. Ignore the data available from non-governmental corporations on principle. Get accused of not doing everything possible to fight crime and terrorism. Can you imagine there being a terror attack, and listening to the FBI saying "we could have had the data to see the pattern, it was there, but we chose not to because we didn't feel it was right to peek, even though courts said it was"? *option rejected*

2. Establish a government-owned domestic surveillance network, and subpoena all available data from non-governmental corporations. Get accused of overt fascism, be compared to the UK and police states. Public opinion turns against the government and their corporate collaborators, who's stock price tanks. Shudder. *option rejected*

3. Buy data with secret budgets from non-governmental corporations. Stovepipe data in from military intelligence agencies, where available. Aggregate with private-sector tools. Funnel payments to private data suppliers as "savings from insurance companies" or "money from grateful community organizations" or some such rot. Enter non-disclosure agreements with data suppliers to hide their collaboration. Gaslight the public, it's other nations that are surveillance states. To keep secret, act on data only where it's deemed to be of vital interest to the state and its allies, not the people. Lie to courts, creating parallel construction fantasies to keep true sources hidden, corrupting the legal system. Because of this, ignore the vast majority of crime found by the panopticon, never actually solving the problem but rather using it to perpetuate the system. *we'll take one of those please!*

So here we are at #3. Been here for a while, nice of some people to start noticing. By the way, no one in power is going to admit that this is where we are, for reasons that are also now obvious. Switching to #1 at this point is off the table, because that would not only endanger the public, but would decrease government power, and we all know that never happens. Yet, #3 is collapsing under its own weight. People aren't buying it anymore. Growth has slowed; the beast has begun cannibalizing itself. So, Mr Trump has a nice big #2 to drop on everyone. Hey, didn't he make a video about that?

Are you sure you guys don't like fascism? The alternative is to keep gaslighting you and drugging away your cognitive dissonance, you know.

(10-29-2025, 11:33 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: There's three options:

1. Ignore the data available from non-governmental corporations on principle. Get accused of not doing everything possible to fight crime and terrorism. Can you imagine there being a terror attack, and listening to the FBI saying "we could have had the data to see the pattern, it was there, but we chose not to because we didn't feel it was right to peek, even though courts said it was"? *option rejected*

2. Establish a government-owned domestic surveillance network, and subpoena all available data from non-governmental corporations. Get accused of overt fascism, be compared to the UK and police states. Public opinion turns against the government and their corporate collaborators, who's stock price tanks. Shudder. *option rejected*

3. Buy data with secret budgets from non-governmental corporations. Stovepipe data in from military intelligence agencies, where available. Aggregate with private-sector tools. Funnel payments to private data suppliers as "savings from insurance companies" or "money from grateful community organizations" or some such rot. Enter non-disclosure agreements with data suppliers to hide their collaboration. Gaslight the public, it's other nations that are surveillance states. To keep secret, act on data only where it's deemed to be of vital interest to the state and its allies, not the people. Lie to courts, creating parallel construction fantasies to keep true sources hidden, corrupting the legal system. Because of this, ignore the vast majority of crime found by the panopticon, never actually solving the problem but rather using it to perpetuate the system. *we'll take one of those please!*

So here we are at #3. Been here for a while, nice of some people to start noticing. By the way, no one in power is going to admit that this is where we are, for reasons that are also now obvious. Switching to #1 at this point is off the table, because that would not only endanger the public, but would decrease government power, and we all know that never happens. Yet, #3 is collapsing under its own weight. People aren't buying it anymore. Growth has slowed; the beast has begun cannibalizing itself. So, Mr Trump has a nice big #2 to drop on everyone. Hey, didn't he make a video about that?

Are you sure you guys don't like fascism? The alternative is to keep gaslighting you and drugging away your cognitive dissonance, you know.

Invasions of privacy for the purposes of fighting crime should require a court order that specifies the data to be retrieved and also that data which is to be retained for the purposes of discovery and evidence. Data retrieved for one court case, is not to be retained for a different case (the police must apply for a new court order to retain data relevant to a different case).

Privacy is a protected human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 12) and under Supreme Court legal definition of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments in the US Constitution.

(10-29-2025, 11:49 PM)chr0naut Wrote: Invasions of privacy for the purposes of fighting crime should require a court order that specifies the data to be retrieved and also that data which is to be retained for the purposes of discovery and evidence. Data retrieved for one court case, is not to be retained for a different case (the police must apply for a new court order to retain data relevant to a different case).

Privacy is a protected human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 12) and under Supreme Court legal definition of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments in the US Constitution.

Well there's a lot of "should" there. Sorry you're living in some delusion; this is happening all over the place, from the local police department level to national organizations like FBI and DHS. What do you think "Terrorist Fusion Centers" are all about?

Privacy does not include a right to hide from the law, the UNDHR makes that clear. And what you're citing (such as is) as Supreme Court "definition" seems like wishful thinking.

But you're correct in one area: there is legal constraint on the targeted use of non-anonymized data. Reading there is Carpenter v. United States. It sets up specific constraints for that. Even now those protections are being rolled back, but that doesn't matter: industry and law enforcement have already worked around them. See the way it works is this: all the data is rolled into big models, that look for suspicious patterns. Those models don't know real names, they just know person "A" withdrew this much cash (from one dataset), then the same person "A" drove to this location (from another dataset), etc. There are layers of private "data aggregation" brokers who collect dataset from providers, and provide aggregated, yet still reversably-anonymized, identity correlations. That is the dataset that is sold to law enforcement. Then, when law enforcement sees where they want to act, if they haven't inferred identity already, they take the data they have, which constitutes probably cause, provide it to a secret court, which rubber stamps a warrant. The entire system is automated. That then gives them the "legal right" to pull the switch and "unmask".

It's really quite simple, no bother at all. As they say: there's an app for that!


I search for recent news about Carpenter, you can too for more info:

Key recent developments to watch (examples—search recommended for up‑to‑date citations):

* Circuit decisions distinguishing or applying Carpenter to brokered data (some district courts have rejected Carpenter’s application to aggregated datasets; others have extended it).
* High‑profile cert petitions seeking review on whether Carpenter applies to commercially acquired location data.
* Legislative proposals on data broker regulation or law‑enforcement access.

We are living in a CIA world and I am a CIA girl lol

(10-30-2025, 12:27 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: But you're correct in one area: there is legal constraint on the targeted use of non-anonymized data. Reading there is Carpenter v. United States. It sets up specific constraints for that. Even now those protections are being rolled back, but that doesn't matter: industry and law enforcement have already worked around them. See the way it works is this: all the data is rolled into big models, that look for suspicious patterns. Those models don't know real names, they just know person "A" withdrew this much cash (from one dataset), then the same person "A" drove to this location (from another dataset), etc. There are layers of private "data aggregation" brokers who collect dataset from providers, and provide aggregated, yet still reversably-anonymized, identity correlations. That is the dataset that is sold to law enforcement. Then, when law enforcement sees where they want to act, if they haven't inferred identity already, they take the data they have, which constitutes probably cause, provide it to a secret court, which rubber stamps a warrant. The entire system is automated. That then gives them the "legal right" to pull the switch and "unmask".

Yeah that all sounds great. But there is just one little problem. If all that works so well. Why do we still have massive amounts of crime and massive amounts of drugs?

(10-30-2025, 06:31 AM)Unknownparadox Wrote: Yeah that all sounds great. But there is just one little problem. If all that works so well. Why do we still have massive amounts of crime and massive amounts of drugs?

I think they're still arguing about where the capital of Utopia should be. But just you wait! One day...

But really, it's quite simple. If there weren't problems, there would be no need for people who keep problems in check. And if there are no people to keep problems in check, that could cause problems. QED.

Massive problems require massive solutions. But massive power requires a constant stream of massive solutions.

(10-30-2025, 06:47 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: I think they're still arguing about where the capital of Utopia should be. But just you wait! One day...

But really, it's quite simple. If there weren't problems, there would be no need for people who keep problems in check. And if there are no people to keep problems in check, that could cause problems. QED.

Massive problems require massive solutions. But massive power requires a constant stream of massive solutions.

Umm okay. They don't need mass surveillance to stop crime and drugs. I could go bust 4 or 5 drug dealers right now. And I am not even a nosy person. I come home from work and shut my door and never look out it, unless there is some big commotion outside.
 

Quote:Why Your Car Is a 'Privacy Nightmare,' and What You Can Do About ItIt's so bad, it seems like it shouldn't be legal

What kind of data are we talking about? It runs from the obvious, like your driving habits, fuel consumption, location, and tire wear (to sell you new tires), to the downright creepy. Nissan, which Mozilla considers the second-worst offender[sup] [/sup]on its list, even tries to collect data about your "sex life." (Mozilla's worst manufacturer is—surprise surprise—Tesla.)
https://www.lifewire.com/automobile-priv...re-7967130

There is a reason the government is spying on us, and is letting tech companies spy on us. And it isn't to stop crime.

(10-30-2025, 07:02 AM)Unknownparadox Wrote: There is a reason the government is spying on us, and is letting tech companies spy on us. And it isn't to stop crime.

Yes it is. The thing is, the term "crime" includes two things: "potential harm to the people", and "potential harm to the government".

Now, one of those the government enforces to the extent that it is necessary, the other is enforced to every extent possible. Guess which is which?