Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.
    by calvinmorrison
  • We don't need mass surveillance with guardrails, we need no mass surveillance. This is good, though, unless it prevents getting rid of mass surveillance.
    by Cider9986
  • Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock.

    P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.

    by iamnothere
  • Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.
    by fortran77
  • This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.
    by nemomarx
  • OP here. Wondering why this was changed to the St. Louis Public Radio link over the Kansas City one.
    by lenerdenator
  • "Kehoe encouraged local agencies to voluntarily commit to those practices when possible under existing contracts and laws".

    So in other words, nothing happened.

    by fred_is_fred
  • Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
    by petcat

Explore Birbla archives