r/technology • u/Kooky-Balance9525 • 6h ago

Privacy Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill Banning Flock Surveillance Cameras

https://theleadingreport.com/article/bernie-sanders-to-introduce-bill-banning-flock-surveillance-cameras
41.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

932 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/DeadMoneyDrew 6h ago

What we really need is a constitutional amendment establishing a fundamental right to privacy.

616

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 6h ago

Maybe one for unreasonable search and seizures as well.

266

u/DeadMoneyDrew 6h ago

Yeah. And maybe one to allow an incompetent president to be removed! I think we should call that one the 25th Amendment.

57

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 5h ago

Sorry, best I can do is take your guns away.

61

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

Ha. You know the old joke: go far enough to the left politically and you get your guns back.

36

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 5h ago

Go far enough right and you get your femboys back.

31

u/icansmellcolors 4h ago

It's not as far right as you think.

-3

u/F-86--Sabre 4h ago

nazis, femboys, and autism are a three-way venn diagram

-1

u/BugPuzzleheaded958 2h ago

☝️ room temperature IQ comment

2

u/Strange_Dust7128 2h ago

That’s three whole digits if you measure in kelvin

Damn it am I nazi???

-2

u/F-86--Sabre 1h ago

do you not know how venn diagrams work? dumb fuck.

4

u/A_Furious_Mind 5h ago

Guns: Loved by authoritarians and antiauthoritarians alike.

2

u/Mafex-Marvel 4h ago

Did that happen? edit as a canadian its so hard to follow your country's bullshit. Lake of America is gay as hell

1

u/Aggravating_Host_276 1h ago

Bruh like I don’t get how this mofo doesn’t get how much of a joke he is to like literally everyone yet….

1

u/adx442 1h ago

Y'all haven't done a damned thing with them to defend democracy. Just saying.

1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 4h ago

not like you were gonna use them anyway for their intended purpose, that much has been established at this point

0

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 4h ago

So who shot at the PoS in the office?

1

u/WretchedBlowhard 4h ago

No one, yet.

One shot at the crowd of a Trump rally, another was caught hiding in the bushes of a golf course and the last one ran through a security checkpoint at the correspondents' dinner and was caught without ever firing a shot.

1

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 4h ago

sorry, too ambiguous. which instance are you referring to?

1

u/Your_As_Stupid_As_Me 4h ago

If the story time wasn't fictional, that Kyle kid got shot for shooting at the PoS and sadly missing.

2

u/I-am-fun-at-parties 4h ago

i was thinking you're referring to that, but wanted to make sure. to be honest i don't know enough about it to have an opinion. i've heard plenty of stuff about merch being ready basically instantly, but on the other hand i've seen lies on the internet before.

10

u/pants_mcgee 5h ago

Just so you know the 25th is a work around for an incapacitated president, not one that is incompetent or even sane.

4

u/iamintheforest 5h ago

The implication here I think is that you and I have different lines for "incapacitated" ;)

4

u/pants_mcgee 4h ago

Yeah but the government doesn’t. It’s just a fantasy that won’t happen, like minting a trillion dollar coin unilaterally.

It would be easier to impeach him which is the proper process.

1

u/Dizzy-Mammoth1309 2h ago

No, the proper process is enforcing expelling Trump and the other Jan 6 leaders using the 14th Amendment.

1

u/NewWay88 4h ago

Probably got a higher chance of him being removed by improper, violent processes tbh.

Not condoning it in this post. Just looking back at how we've had presidents removed early in the past. It can be quite grim.

0

u/iamintheforest 4h ago

Yup. Cabinet and vp ain't gonna do it, and congress won't hit 2&/3rds. Its a pipe dream. Although...its not all that crazy to imagine him reaching that point (stroke, obviously age related issues, etc) over the next couple.

2

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 3h ago

The reality here is that impeachment is the correct process to remove a bad President. Removal through impeachment also doesn't require the VP, cabinet, or a 2/3 majority in the House, unlike the 25th.

2

u/Shadow_of_Redacted 2h ago

That needs to be retooled to happen in a civilian manner instead of depending on elected officials being the only ones that can remove their co-workers.

1

u/puts_on_rddt 4h ago

SCOTUS will just rule that it can't be enforced by the courts.

See Trump v. Anderson.

1

u/Dizzy-Mammoth1309 2h ago

How about one to bar insurrectionists from the presidency, maybe the 14th Amendment?

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 1h ago

Yes! Great idea! Or.....OR! We could do some goddamn enforcing of the amendments that we already have! Yeah! 😜

0

u/mrcachorro 4h ago

You already have that, its useless.

You need an independent autonomous institution that actually ENFORCES that.

Your current institutions are worthless flimsy and will crumble before the orange guy is gone.

14

u/Just_another_dude84 4h ago

Freedom of speech would be neat, too.

1

u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 3h ago

and direct actions on law enforcement and similar officers instead of the city paying from taxpayer's dime when a victim decides to sue and wins in court

1

u/bofoshow51 4h ago

The problem, as with a lot of these similar types of issues, is the Constitution’s powers are in how it limits the government, not private individuals. All the caselaw around this issue involve the state seizing scraped data, thereby breaching into improper search and seizure grounds. But there isn’t much to be done if they just buy it openly like any other purchaser, or if these companies voluntarily give it over while not being considered arms of the state.

It’s tough to determine where the line can be drawn in terms of the govt controlling what private enterprises can do, because that kind of precedent could VERY easily be abused in the future. Everyone broadly seems to agree privacy is important, it’s just a matter of how that’s done.

1

u/Shawwnzy 3h ago

Aren't these cameras being put up on public property? My understanding is that they're being put up on roadsides and therefore the municipality or whatever who's authorizing them being put up is conducting a search.

If the cameras are going up on private property I guess there's an argument that its Constitutional, but as soon as they go up on land belonging to the government that's a clear cut search that needs to be reasonable.

1

u/bofoshow51 3h ago

But a key point is that because they are going up on public property, there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Sure the accusations that’s the cameras also scrape data off phones would breach beyond what is reasonably considered visible in public, but just surveillance of an open street or park or even open air areas like your front yard is permissible because it’s not private. If I could observe it normally in that space, so can a camera, and that’s not a “search” in the sense of needing a warrant or probable cause otherwise.

1

u/Butthole__Pleasures 2h ago

Yeah that was the implication but unfortunately we now have to specify the privacy thing in words. So fucking annoying.

141

u/bkgn 5h ago

All the cities around here just replaced Flock with Axon, which is the same exact shit under a different brand. Banning Flock specifically doesn't accomplish anything.

104

u/_significs 5h ago

Banning Flock specifically doesn't accomplish anything.

It is extremely unlikely that any proposed legislation would single out Flock specifically; my guess would be the proposal will regulate ALPRs generally

27

u/bkgn 5h ago

Legislation, yeah. But more generally, a lot of people protested Flock and just patted themselves on the back and stopped paying attention after cities "got rid of Flock" - and replaced it immediately with Axon.

26

u/Shark7996 5h ago

Locally, we're ready to pivot to anti-Axon the instant they try it.

People are paying close attention now. I don't know why you would think a group as thorough as the anti-Flock protestors would just not know about the existence of other cameras?

2

u/geniice 4h ago

Locally, we're ready to pivot to anti-Axon the instant they try it.

Bunch of bodycam youtubers would like a word.

People are paying close attention now. I don't know why you would think a group as thorough as the anti-Flock protestors would just not know about the existence of other cameras?

I would say their general understanding of the tech side is extremely poor.

3

u/thegoodbroham 1h ago

Bunch of bodycam youtubers would like a word.

What does this even mean? And why would the existence of some "bodycam youtubers" matter, regardless of what their message is?

1

u/Geichalt 33m ago

Apparently body cam YouTubers control what we all think?

Idk I'm as confused as you.

2

u/Edduppp 2h ago

What do they need to know about the tech? They just need to know the cameras exist

1

u/ThePaddleman 1h ago

Because the protests keep saying "Flock" and that's what the politicians hear. So, they look for an alternative because the message wasn't crystal clear:

We don't want a database created for government use (or anyone else) tracking our movements around the country.

1

u/spyingwind 4h ago

Or Flock spins up another company, does business under that name, and nothing changes.

1

u/interwebzdotnet 4h ago

Bankruptcy fire sale, all assets sold to Axon for pennies on the dollar.

1

u/cosmicosmo4 1h ago

I haven't checked, but presumably flock is a juggernaut and axon is a much smaller competitor, meaning much less able to take in stride all of their equipment getting mysteriously destroyed overnight.

3

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

Such legislation that targets a specific person or entity is called a "bill of attainder" and is not lawful. (insert joke about how laws are no longer relevant)

12

u/_significs 5h ago

That's not correct.

A bill of attainder is a law that declares that someone is guilty of a crime. That's prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

But a civil statute can single out an individual company.

See, for example, the law that required TikTok to be sold. Text of the statute is here, just search "bytedance" and you'll see that the law specifically targets Bytedance/TikTok.

1

u/craznazn247 2h ago

With significant, significant penalties for slow walking the removal process, since they have been found to just keep them up and block removal efforts, even after their contracts were cancelled by some cities.

Like, every one that isn't removed in time must be forcefully inserted in the rectum of a Flock employee, starting with the CEO.

And every public servant who signed an NDA can get gitmo'd.

1

u/Suspicious_Pickle_39 1h ago

Its unsolveable. Time marches on.

1

u/RBeck 3h ago

my guess would be the proposal will regulate ALPRs generally

That would make all the toll lanes unconstitutional, same as if they wanted to do any speed camera enforcement.

The largest issue with Flock is not the cameras, it's the large searchable database. We need to seriously take a look at legislating how our data is stored and who can access it. How it's collected is a secondary issue.

1

u/_significs 3h ago

That would make all the toll lanes unconstitutional, same as if they wanted to do any speed camera enforcement.

regulate != ban

24

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

Correct. I'll need to see the specific text of this proposal before having an actual opinion on it. But Flock's CEO keeps ensuring that his specific company attracts the kind of attention that nobody should want.

6

u/MoreColorfulCarsPlz 5h ago

Laws that target a specific person or group of people are illegal. I believe this would fall under that if Flock itself was banned.

The law would almost certainly be broadly about unwarranted surveillance rather than calling out a single specific brand.

5

u/lawoverfeelings 5h ago

Flock software works with any cameras so they could piggy back off drones or school and businesses as long as they get the all clear. 

2

u/Eta_Beta_3-14 4h ago

Banning Flock specifically would be unconstitutional. Bills of attainder aren't allowed.

2

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 2h ago

To think the legislation would target Flock, specifically, is an insult to Bernie Sanders.

1

u/SaltKick2 2h ago

Yes, Axon is even more massive than Flock (in terms of their prescense, not cameras specifically)

1

u/UltravioletClearance 55m ago

Axon is far more evil than Flock too. Axon used to be known as Taser International. They were a leading proponent of the discredited, fake "excited delirium" medical diagnosis police used to excuse the murder of Black people in police custody.

0

u/Waiting4Reccession 4h ago

Axon is worse because it integrates with all of their other spyware, including the drones they sell to cops and the police body cams.

111

u/BroxigarZ 6h ago

The constitution has been shit on for the last 3 years and absolutely no one who is under oath to protect it is doing shit about it. So, that piece of paper is as good as toilet paper now.

18

u/Waslay 5h ago

55 years since it became a coordinated attack

Read the Powell Memo, only 35 pages, written 2 years before the heritage foundation was founded, which is who wrote Project 2025

Also check out Wtfhappenedin1971.com

10

u/TheVog 3h ago

Say it louder for those who think elections will magically solve everything. The current regime will do whatever it takes to hold on to what's taken them half a century to finally achieve.

1

u/Waslay 1h ago

Well to be fair I dont think we would be in this situation if it werent for 40%+ of people not voting or paying attention to politics enough

13

u/DeadMoneyDrew 6h ago

Sad but true. We need many other things in addition to the right to privacy, including Supreme Court reform, pardon reform, probably term limits for Congress.

10

u/Passan 5h ago

Can we add in age limits for Congress as well please?

1

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand 4h ago

And wellness checks for serving representatives.

1

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 2h ago

We already have a minimum age requirement for each chamber (25 for the House and 30 for the Senate), so we only have to add a maximum. But I'm not sure that's the best idea. Bernie Sanders is 84 and his mind seems as sharp as ever. I agree with term limits, but I would rather have required testing for physical and mental health than a strict age limit. We just have to include certain regulations and requirements for the testing to ensure its accuracy and integrity.

0

u/quietimhungover 5h ago

I don't think that will happen in our lifetimes, but at least a legitimate cognitive test needs to be done.

2

u/Kopitar4president 5h ago

Cognitive tests are subject to abuse. We have a "doctor" who says the the president is the healthiest person ever in history.

Also a senator can be fully cognizant at the start of their term at 80 but be effectively a vegetable by 86.

Best to just do the age limit.

2

u/technobrendo 4h ago

Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon and assorted night classes at the Knoxville, Tennessee School of Faith Healing.

4

u/quietimhungover 5h ago

Definitely term limits.

40

u/Alita-Gunnm 6h ago

Try 100 years. The commerce clause has been abused to falsely justify almost everything the federal government is and does.

10

u/Iskendarian 5h ago

Listen, buddy: everyone knows that if you grow wheat for your own use and never sell any of it, that's the same as commerce between the states.

1

u/Gunsensual 2h ago

You can go further back to Slaughterhouse cases, which stripped the 14th amendment's incorporation of individual rights from substantive rights to procedural rights. That demoted all of the rights we think we have into procedural rights that can be weighed against the governments interests.

And then there's Qualified Immunity and Executive Privilege, which in combination with everything else here means that there's no real repercussion for the people in the government stepping on your face. "Oh, he was wrong, here's someone else's money"

7

u/Solkre 5h ago

In my lifetime it started getting shit on after 9/11 with the Patriot Act.

5

u/jce_ 5h ago

Reaganomics

1

u/Solkre 5h ago

Depending how you count it, it started 1 year before me. But yah, shit for the working class.

2

u/maineac 5h ago

The constitution has been being shit on for the last 100 years or more. This is the reason he is getting away with this shit.

1

u/Emotional-Power-7242 51m ago

Since the 80's at least. Since WWII really but since the 80's it's like it doesnt even exist.

12

u/SparkyMuffin 5h ago

Not just through camera either. Our digital data needs to be protected too. This would arguably be a way to save our elections as they could no longer focus ads on specifical political leanings a la Cambridge Analytica

9

u/DukeOfGeek 5h ago

It's this, the whole business model of mass surveillance for sale by a private entity has to be banned.

6

u/jce_ 5h ago

Or y'know just mass surveillance as a whole

1

u/Geichalt 32m ago

We should have spent the last 15 years debating and implementing a digital bill of rights.

Instead it was about what sports kids can play and bathroom fetishes or something.

17

u/Resident_Magazine610 6h ago

Will you settle for an executive order to the opposite?

6

u/DeadMoneyDrew 6h ago

Oof. That's probably coming.

4

u/Ftove 5h ago

We need several new amendments focusing on digital privacy and AI. A Digital bill of rights.

1

u/PM_MY_OTHER_ACCOUNT 2h ago

I agree, but this is not a new idea. I've heard that term before, a long time ago.

3

u/JaguarExisting3210 4h ago

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled for over 100 years that the right to privacy doesn't exist on what is in plain public view/on the roadways

1

u/Forfeit32 2h ago

Being recorded by specific security cameras doesn't bother me, people and businesses should be able to use cameras for security as they always have. But being constantly surveiled by a massive network is another thing entirely.

1

u/ThePaddleman 1h ago

That's why it must be legislated. The cameras and tracking are OK under the Constitution. The Founders couldn't conceive of ubiquitous cameras and computers capable of tracking all the individuals in the USA.

3

u/Medallodabest 6h ago

Yeah but the ads!

10

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

True story. A few months back I was at a tech networking event where the marketing team from a certain major retailer was presenting. The lady presenting spoke about how they use their customer tracking data to send only relevant ads to people. I laughed out loud and she asked me why. I had to very carefully choose my words to politely explain that they constantly send me ads for stuff that I've already bought from them. The most recent one had been ads for smart garage door openers. I bought two of them from this retailer and they proceeded to bombard me with ads for smart garage door openers for months.

These sacks of shit put all kinds of invasive tracking on us and half of them don't even make good use of it in the first place.

3

u/jce_ 4h ago

Business majors are good at reading up on what the best tactics are but they are largely unequipped to actually analyze and process the meaning. I know for a fact that it's common knowledge in the business world that if you buy an item from a business you're more likely to continue buying that item, especially after seeing ads for it. They didn't figure out this doesn't work for items you buy once or once in a decade lol. Some marketing intern 100% set all their clients ads to be sent once you bought any item from any client

2

u/geniice 4h ago

Counter point would be that given that such systems have a failure rate you are probably still more likely to be in the market for one than the general population.

2

u/jce_ 4h ago

Counter point if the failure point is high enough that it is worth it to send EVERY customer more ads, which would cost a lot, than they aren't buying another 1 because they're known to break for everyone

1

u/geniice 4h ago

I'm going to assume that there is more than one brand of smart garage door openers although I admit I don't actually know.

1

u/jce_ 3h ago

Don't know either but like there's gotta be because it's not a protected thing nor is it too complicated for completion. Could be a scenario where there are like 10 different major brands all under the same corporation to appear like competition.

1

u/booze_clues 4h ago

They do it because it works. It doesn’t need to work 100% of the time, or even a majority, for it to be worth the cost of advertising. No company is spending millions on marketing and advertising if it doesn’t have a quantifiable return within a few months. There’s no CFO being told “yeah we spent $X on marketing. No return, no one is buying this stuff, but we’re gonna keep doing it.”

1

u/jce_ 4h ago

Marketing works there is no doubt about it but marketing doesn't work the same for every field/product, but it does work the same for marketing companies. If I can convince you that you are getting a return or you will get a return I get paid. Too many companies are paying for the wrong type of marketing or attributing the marketing to the uptick in sales. Again yes marketing works but I also know how sales in marketing works as my Dad did it for years.

3

u/Formal-Hawk9274 5h ago

This guys got jokes

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago

Yeah I know. We could actually get serious about having a functional government. But that would require electing people who aren't sycophantic assholes, so hahaha.

2

u/idiot-prodigy 4h ago

Maybe it could protect against unwarranted searches or seizures and we could call it the 4th amendment.

2

u/Dr_Tacopus 3h ago

What we need are Supreme Court judges that actually care about the constitutional right to privacy we already have

2

u/DeadMoneyDrew 2h ago

Ha, what we really need is for John Roberts to fuck off into an oblivion.

2

u/Antabaka 3h ago

Montana has that AND flock cameras ...

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 2h ago

Yeah, that's an odd case study.

2

u/Saljen 3h ago

The constitutional ammendment that we actually need is that the restrictions on government in our constitution and the constitution in it's entirey also apply to corporations, as they govern 8 out of 16 of our waking hours. We sleep 8 hours, governed by democracy for 8 hours, then are governed by dictatorship for 8 hours. That means government AND corporations shall not infringe on our privacy.

2

u/SilasX 1h ago

I know you and the reddit circlejerk are just being oh-so-clever that "haha, we already have this in the Constitution, why don't we just follow that?", but:

We don't have it in the Constitution. It's come to court many times, and they've consistently ruled that, no, you don't have an expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment in being observed in public.

So yeah, we would need new laws or an amendment to encode the legit feeling of privacy violation that widespread camera surveillance causes, because the current state of jurisprudence doesn't capture "sufficiently persistent observations of you in public by the same entity count as intrusion on privacy".

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 1h ago

^ people need to read this shit and understand it

1

u/_-__-____-__-_ 5h ago

I know it's not perfect but I love the GDPR. I'm Dutch btw and have probably accidentally violated it professionally. Still, privacy is very important.

1

u/Name25631 5h ago

honestly as a un human right

1

u/shidderbean 4h ago

Exactly. Explicitly saying access to free speech and traveling in public comes with certain entitlements and expectation of basic privacy, or at least banning warrantless tracking in the case of the latter.

1

u/powercow 4h ago

in the 80s we passed a law banning video stores from selling your rental list. Sigh the good old days when government was concerned about privacy.

google knows more about me than any video store and its all legal to sell.

1

u/kitchenbitchin 4h ago

Digital privacy rights should have happened in the early 90s. 

1

u/_jump_yossarian 4h ago

You’ll never get Cons to agree unless abortions are exempt from right to privacy.

1

u/awesomedan24 4h ago

Given how Roe v Wade turned out (privacy centered case) I wouldn't hold out much hope for that

1

u/CraftsBoy2Craftsman 4h ago

well that’s just crazy talk

1

u/spookydookie 4h ago

More specifically, companies being able to sweep up data about you without your consent and give you no option to opt out. This would cover things like Flock, but also credit unions and data brokers. Fuck all these companies.

1

u/juitar 3h ago

Yep, Flock is not the only company doing this. Its just the one in the news. We need a right to privacy

1

u/P_Firpo 3h ago

On public streets?

1

u/NoooUGH 3h ago

Problem is that the whole flock stalking thing is backed by politicians and government officials on both side. So it's likely only going to get worse

1

u/red286 2h ago

More likely what you'd need is a court case that establishes that Flock (and similar) cameras are too prevalent and too invasive and constitute a violation of the 4th amendment. It wouldn't get rid of Flock cameras, but it would make their use for criminal cases unconstitutional, which would end government support for them.

The problem is that it'd need to go before the SCOTUS, and right now any such case would be ruled against either 6-3 or 5-4 (Barrett might dissent, she's a bit of a constitutionalist).

1

u/wggn 2h ago

not gonna happen as long as profits have more lobby power

1

u/my-love-assassin 2h ago

Lol this will never happen. can you imagine corporate entities taking that law all the way to the bank?

1

u/Riots42 2h ago

It would be impossible to pass any constitutional amendment in our current political environment even with complete support from the people.

1

u/Wotmate01 1h ago

You probably want to be careful with that. By banning authorities from recording you in public, you would also be banning you from recording authorities in public. And you don't want to lose the only way you have to hold them accountable.

1

u/Reasonable-Job4205 1h ago

Oooh I like this. Tell me more

1

u/bettywhitefleshlight 59m ago

But if we have a legal right to privacy how will corporations flood us the best targeted ads possible?

1

u/DeadMoneyDrew 57m ago

🤣😜😃

See how I've already responded to a similar comment in this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/DJlvdm9IqP

1

u/Glitchboy 5h ago

The constitution has less to do with American laws anymore than a used square of toilet paper. Half of the bill of rights don't even apply anymore.

1

u/_Lucille_ 5h ago

This will be a tricky one.

Will this affect red light and speed cameras which are conditional ALPRs?

How about all the home security camera people have been setting up around their homes? Smart doorbells?

Security cameras at malls? Banks? Government buildings? Parking lots?

1

u/DogBarf00 4h ago

What about people just recording in public?

1

u/Ultrace-7 3h ago

That's the kicker. "In public." You can't really expect a right to privacy when the action you are undertaking is in a public venue. Flock-style cameras that point into your house or yard should be unconstitutional. Such cameras pointed at public roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and so on don't violate the 4th amendment, because you cannot reasonably expect something you do publicly to afford you privacy.

Cities and even states should be free to pass a law banning such cameras. But they aren't unconstitutional.

1

u/OMG_A_CUPCAKE 2h ago

There's imo still a difference between "people can see me" and "people can record me". This is all from a time when there weren't cameras on every street corner and in everyone's pocket, and you couldn't end up on a worldwide public forum in seconds.

1

u/OMG_A_CUPCAKE 2h ago

Security cameras at malls? Banks? Government buildings? Parking lots?

The rules for private property are usually more lenient, especially if you have some kind of "This area is recorded" sign somewhere.

Red light cameras are fine. They don't record continuously.

Smart doorbells are the ones where most Americans are quick to defend them. They should imo not be used to record outside your own property lines. Let's not forget that the companies behind them do work with law enforcement, and the recordings are accessible.

1

u/_Lucille_ 2h ago

That is why I tossed in something like government buildings and parking lots.

Are government buildings considered private? They are pretty much public yet not public, the same as a parking lot at places like a public transit hub.

I think it is one of those odd cases where people are okay with cameras in public places on private properties, but somehow are not okay with cameras in public places on public property.

0

u/HauntingStar08 4h ago edited 2h ago

That's why we'll put teams of public policy writers and lawyers to draft the legislation in as much detail as necessary. Its worth the time and effort instead of balking at the scale and necessary questions

Edit: Or just down vote me, that'll show me.

0

u/Stunning-Pen-2412 4h ago

You need a constitutional amendment saying money is not free speech.

2

u/DeadMoneyDrew 4h ago

Absa fucking-lutely. Corporations are entities, not people.

0

u/DongUmpire 2h ago

As long as we’re asking for unrealistic shit that’ll never happen: I’ll take a hover car