The problem is that state agents can use surveillance tech or surveillance services with no regulatory review on how this technology interacts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what is specifically supposed to protect Americans from this sort of stuff.
This is partly due to the presumption of regularity, the assumption by courts that law enforcement follows rules, even when we know they historically do not. (And DHS is even worse).
It’s a separate problem that private companies can also buy this data. They shouldn’t have the right to surveil Americans for private purposes any more than the state does.
Also be aware that some districts that are ending their contracts with Flock Safety are quietly switching over to other ALPR services such as Axon. Don’t let your district get away with it.
The problem is that state agents can use surveillance tech or surveillance services with no regulatory review on how this technology interacts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, what is specifically supposed to protect Americans from this sort of stuff.
This is partly due to the presumption of regularity, the assumption by courts that law enforcement follows rules, even when we know they historically do not. (And DHS is even worse).
It’s a separate problem that private companies can also buy this data. They shouldn’t have the right to surveil Americans for private purposes any more than the state does.
Also be aware that some districts that are ending their contracts with Flock Safety are quietly switching over to other ALPR services such as Axon. Don’t let your district get away with it.