01-17-2017, 06:36 PM
Viewfromthe42, I agree that system is fine. Further, I think its reasonable for the cameras in a public location to be used to see who performed an illegal act. And in fact, I would hazard a guess that your case had nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with laziness / unwillingness to get involved in something that didn't effect them.
My point was that if, say, the license plates were all sent back to a central location with location + time and preservered, that is an invasion of privacy (imo). I don't think its reasonable for the Government to be able to track and store someone's location just because they drive. I think the "Driving is a privilege not a right" is a very poor argument in for anything.
As an example, the system that you described is reasonable in that it helps enforce very reasonable parking laws. That's the rationale that makes it ok to me. Similarly, an automatic facial detection system used in public to identify pre-selected high-risk individuals with no data being collected or preserved would also be ok with me.
My point was that if, say, the license plates were all sent back to a central location with location + time and preservered, that is an invasion of privacy (imo). I don't think its reasonable for the Government to be able to track and store someone's location just because they drive. I think the "Driving is a privilege not a right" is a very poor argument in for anything.
As an example, the system that you described is reasonable in that it helps enforce very reasonable parking laws. That's the rationale that makes it ok to me. Similarly, an automatic facial detection system used in public to identify pre-selected high-risk individuals with no data being collected or preserved would also be ok with me.