>>>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide".
>>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"
>> These are the same Constitutional question.
> They're not remotely the same Constitutional question.
They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment:
... and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
How does ubiquitous surveillance used as evidence whenever possible not violate this section of the Constitution, if not others?
And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned?
They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.
> Almost no day-to-day policing is done with warrants!
Just because I feel bad for taking advantage of the above statement, here is a snippet from "Warrants in U.S. Law: The Ultimate Guide":
Imagine your home is your castle, and the U.S. Constitution
has built a protective wall around it called the Fourth
Amendment. This wall protects your right to privacy and
security from government intrusion. Now, imagine a police
officer wants to enter your castle. They can't just knock
down the gate; they need a special key. A warrant is that
key. It's not just any key, though. It's a special
permission slip, signed by a neutral judge (a magistrate),
that says the government has a very good, specific
reason—called Probable Cause—to believe that evidence of a
crime is inside your home, or that you have committed a
crime. This document acts as a crucial check on government
power, ensuring that law enforcement can't search your
property or arrest you on a whim. It's a fundamental
safeguard that forces the government to justify its actions
before it invades your privacy, protecting every citizen
from unreasonable searches and seizures.[0]
Judicial warrants are the cornerstone of U.S. criminal law.
If you come up with an argument for this that's somehow particular to ALPR cameras and not an indictment of all policing since the 20th century, I'll likely respond.
>>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"
>> These are the same Constitutional question.
> They're not remotely the same Constitutional question.
They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment:
How does ubiquitous surveillance used as evidence whenever possible not violate this section of the Constitution, if not others?And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned?
They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.