In a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, 404 Media recently revealed that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.”

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    If those cameras were in France they would rip them up and set them alight in a bonfire on the Champs-Élysées.

    • FancyPantsFIRE@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      5 days ago

      Doesn’t France have extensive camera coverage of public areas? Though for sure the French would riot were they misused in this fashion.

      • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        There’s a big difference between a passive surveillance camera and a network of devices that logs every time you go past one of the 83k+ spots or a car equipped with them. It’s warrantless tracking and a constitutional violation. They’ve already been declared illegal in several criminal cases, but it hasn’t reached a higher court yet. There is a lawsuit over these but I haven’t heard anything about it in awhile.

        Edit: It survived a motion to dismiss and is moving forward in federal court.

        www.yahoo.com/news/flock-camera-case-could-local-190000699.html

        • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Sorry but no there is no difference other than the words you use to describe them. Camera networks is surveillance.

          • Auli@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 days ago

            A bunch of privately owned camera systems and one controlled by the government are vastly different.

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            the difficulty to search is a significant difference: there’s practical way to search 83,000 cameras manually… automation makes it a problem more than the cameras themselves

        • amelore@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Aren’t those just ALPR camera’s? France has those too.
          To have them without being a police state you need a short strict list of things cops are allowed to use them for. Like the article says basically.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Which is funny since Americans always called French cowards. But who are the real cowards?

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Of course the people opposing an illegitimate war are the cowards. Not those ordering poor people to die on the other side of the world.

        Freedom fries indeed.