The word "acknowledged" seems to have been dropped from the title.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
232 points (99.6% liked)
Privacy
48713 readers
805 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Sadly this headline is not entirely accurate. What the amendment does is it bans recipients of federal highway funds from using the readers for anything other than toll collection. I think anyone who keeps up with how surveillance works these day's can guess what the result will be.
Private companies will operate the cameras and sell the surveillance data back to the police. Since private companies do not need federal highway funds it won't effect them. Massive loophole.
It is already common for Flock Cameras for example to be private. Stores will buy them and install them. It's just more privitization of surveillance. There will still be license plate readers everywhere.
Agree with you about possible loopholes. My ideal would be to ammend the language of the bill to explicitly forbid USE of ALPR data. No matter even if the data came from a privately owned camera. In fact, we may be able to write to our reps to suggest that.
But assuming we don't get that far in this particular bill, I still think it's better than not passing it at all. First, a lot of communities will resepct the spirit of it. I think mine would do that. We're already on the edge of banning them city wide. Lots of opposition to the cameras here in the electorate and we're pressuring the city gov. With a national bill like this, I don't believe my local gov would try to loophole it.
Of course, some others would. There would prob be court cases over it, yada yada. But nationwide, I believe this bill would make a dent. Even in its flawed form. It would also raise awareness of Flocks with Joe Sixpack. Most ppl don't like the idea at all, once they learn of it. Just building momentum helps. Even if it's not the end of the journey.
There is no way anything good is happening from now on. The rest of our lives are almost certainly fucked.
The cynic in me says there's no way this passes and gets signed...right?
Well even law enforcement and politicians (corrupt or not) don't want this.
The cops maybe, but the agencies are in the pockets of the companies that sell it. And they control the message given to politicians who are also on the pockets of these companies. The companies have no qualms bribing all over the spectrum of politics and haven't been stopped from doing it up to now. The systems are crap but super expensive for this very reason. The primary cost of the product is the bribes, not the technology. It's how the industry of road cameras (plate tracking, red light, speed, etc.) has always been.
Holy shit please
Tell your representatives that you want them to vote yes on this.
I'd rather they stop invading our privacy, than pay double to privatize invading our privacy.