> There is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate
I heavily disagree with the sentiment that modern 'ALPRs' are the same as following around an individual in public. No police officer, sheriff, state trooper, etc. is able to follow an individual across the entire country and catalog their every move 24/7. They have jurisdictions they're allowed to operate in. Additionally, the level of tracking these cameras provide (via their accompanying software) is nearly on par with placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle (which requires a warrant btw), and they're tracking every vehicle that passes, not just vehicles involved in a crime. Our travel history is protected by the 4th amendment because of the intimate details it can reveal about an individual's life. That is ultimately why Chatrie v. US was decided, not because of the specific technology utilized. It's the same case for Carpenter v. US and US v. Jones; both of which were instrumental in deciding the outcome of Chatrie.
I encourage people to go read the opinions of the justices that decided these cases. For example Justice Kegan had this to say in Chatrie v. US [1]:
> The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle. In United States v. Jones, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” That made sense, the Carpenter Court thought, even though the movements occurred in public. Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.
FWIW, I totally agree with you, that's why I wrote "Digital recording and powerful search features certainly change the calculus".
But my point was just that it's absolutely not a fait accompli given the current makeup of SCOTUS. Gorsuch' rationale doesn't fit within Kagan's at all and is wholly dependent on the private relationship between Google and the consumer, so that brings it to 5-4, and I could easily see Roberts or Kavanagh (who voted with the majority in Chatrie) finding enough differences between the circumstances in Chatrie compared to Flock to change their vote.
2, 3 and 4 are not illegal or probable cause for arrest. Refusing a search (5) is not even probable cause for arrest.
1 is likely probable cause for arrest, sure. Admitting to having marijuana in the vehicle (5) gives them probable cause to search the vehicle. But probable cause to search the individual's travel history over the last month? No, that requires a warrant.
> Some engage in shoplifting as a trade, while others are driven by addiction or mental illness
> Mr. Filpo said he had become accustomed to escorting people out of the deli who are shoplifting, many of them homeless. Cleaning items like laundry detergent, priced from about $8 to $11, are the items that are stolen most often, he said.
> Shoplifting is a crime of poverty, said Arielle Reid, supervising attorney of the Decarceration Project at the Legal Aid Society, New York’s largest provider of criminal and civil services for indigent clients. It can’t be solved by a continued reliance on “the heavy hand of law enforcement,” she said.
Do you think no one else was shoplifting? Feels like who was arrested for it and those who were responsible for most of the actual shoplifting, punished or not, may not be the same groups, and using one as if it's directly correlated, without any evidence, is quite silly.
Those 327 were arrested over 6,000 times. They are professional shoplifters. Get the high-frequency shoplifters off the streets, and stop making it look like a viable career. With nearly 20 arrests per year, there is ample opportunity to cut this issue by 30%.
6,000 catch and release arrests is a massive waste of resources. Not arresting them at all with effectively legalize shoplifting, which is the end of retail, so it seems like the logical solution is to stop slapping these people on the wrist who clearly don’t care about another meaningless arrest on their record.
Doing nothing and continuing to release these people to do it again, is quite silly.
Something needs to happen between now and a cultural shift that will take decades.
Compassion for the criminals comes at the expense of the peace, safety, and well-being of everyone else. There seems to be little compassion for the vast majority who act right, but have to put up with all of it, which ends up eroding public trust and keeps us on a downward spiral.
> There seems to be little compassion for the vast majority who act right, but have to put up with all of it, which ends up eroding public trust and keeps us on a downward spiral.
Everything in here is unfounded. Unless you have sources?
Recidivism rates for those committing violent crimes are over 60%[0]… and those are just the ones who got caught.
Less violent crimes still erode public trust. Do I really need to dig up a study on this, when we have to show our receipts to someone at the door at Costco and Walmart, have Flock cameras going up everywhere, extra cameras in your face when in front of certain grocery items, personal care items behind lock and key, etc. These are all signs of a lower-trust society. When it gets bad enough we see retail stores simply closing, food deserts, etc… we have seen all these things in high-crime areas for a long time.
Companies wouldn’t waste money on escalating measures of inventory security if their inventory wasn’t at risk, based on their own shrinkage data.
I'm pretty sure the D270 is meant to be a competitor to the RTX Pro 6000, which also has 1.79TB/s memory bandwidth like the RTX 5090. And it will potentially be a competitor (depending on what the MSRP is) to Nvidia GB10 based systems for 'small' scale AI development. It's not meant to run frontier-size models at the speed you'd expect from something like a cluster of H200 cards.
D270:
1.5TB/s memory bandwidth, 480GB memory capacity, 350W power draw
RTX Pro 6000:
1.79TB/s memory bandwidth, 96GB memory capacity, 600W power draw
Slightly less memory bandwidth, but 5x memory capacity and nearly half the power draw.
> I cannot ultimately prevent the buying and selling behind the scenes. We cannot realistically prevent collection of everything possible.
Yeah, but you can very easily _limit_ what is collected and sold behind the scenes just buy switching browsers, changing browser settings, or using a couple privacy extensions. A little goes a long way.
Any company that would hypothetically acquire them would need to be able to fully - and indefinitely - subsidize their unsustainable operational costs. I don't see how that's realistic even for a company like Microsoft.
They would also stop selling equity to private investors. They are likely diluting their own stake.
But they need the money. After all that has already been invested they still need more. That is all I need to know about any delusions that they are currently profitable.
If they're physically here on US soil on a visa, they're paying the same taxes as any other US citizen. Sales tax, property tax, Social Security, Medicaid, etc..
