If those cameras were in France they would rip them up and set them alight in a bonfire on the Champs-Élysées.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
543 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
2545 readers
148 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
Doesn’t France have extensive camera coverage of public areas? Though for sure the French would riot were they misused in this fashion.
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
Sorry but no there is no difference other than the words you use to describe them. Camera networks is surveillance.
A bunch of privately owned camera systems and one controlled by the government are vastly different.
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
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.
Which is funny since Americans always called French cowards. But who are the real cowards?
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.
It's Texas. Most of those people approve of this.
If it happened in LA, you'd see more than cameras on fire.
well we now know when cops are really motivated they can find the person they are looking for. the problem is what they are motivated by.
Welcome to Gilead.
Texas, that’s your tax dollars.
Not just Texas. They can access them nationwide without warrants. An attempt to crowdsource a db of installations is at https://deflock.me/
States allowing this access over state borders and ICE presence are complicit with the policies of the states it is coming from. People from the US have to realize, that the people abusing this, being chosen for ICE, and working to detain ICE detainee's illegally, are operating from very specific states. This bloodless civil war has cost the US its democracy, and it's f-ing hilarious how people think they are going to have legit midterms.
The issue is that this data is held by a private company, not the government, which is how governments can get around restrictions regarding searches and data collection. You also see this with ICE and border patrol just buying 'marketing data' from airlines to figure out who was on what flight.
I think that problem is due to nothing equivalent to GDPR, and privacy laws in the US that are handled at the state level, badly.
Yeah, privacy isn't exactly high on the list of priorities in the US.
and it’s f-ing hilarious how people think they are going to have legit midterms.
You and I have very different senses of humor
The US already fought one civil war over the states overreaching their jurisdictions by abusing federal legislation.
This issue is rather a lack of federal legislation.
I always love how this tech is never used to track down pedophiles, or sexual assaults, murders and the like but the minute you step out of line the fash's mouths water at the chance to use this shit.
What’s the end result though
The end result is that this poor woman didn’t have the privacy she deserved. It doesn’t matter if they don’t do anything else. This alone is a violation that would have anyone freaked the fuck out.
Edit: we all deserve privacy and these tech fucks are taking it away.
The end result is that her civil rights were likely violated.
I’ve seen this reported in a few different places and it does not appear to be mentioned.
Nothing. The abortion was self-administered, the family became concerned for her wellbeing and went to the police, the police looked for their numberplate in the nationwide network.
You can read the original article linked in this one. They are vastly different.
Good question. Probably arrested her, but it didn't say.
SEARCHING FOR FEMALE...
Does trump want America to be like an extremist religious government? Like in Iran? Like in the Handmaids tale? The F***????????????????????????????????????????????????
You should look up the Dominionists. The speaker of the house is one of them and at least one Justice. They are in power and that should scare us.
I'm guessing this system was set up well before this happened. At least it's getting attention now. Better late than never
Extend of Bodily autonomy in the land of free. /s
why not 84,000?
That would be a bit over the top imo
fair
https://youtu.be/ZIBj2GIbGo0?t=87
I can't stress enough how just one more could have been a disaster.
Surveillance being powerful, and the law being bad, are two different things. If they only ever used this to catch pedos I don't think anyone would care.
It sounds like police searched this system because her family reported her missing. I get the implication, that this system can potentially be used by awful governments in awful ways, but the police weren't looking for this woman because she had an abortion like this headline implies
Directly from the article:
The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.”
If you read the entire article, it explains her family reached out to the police concerned about her safety after she had an abortion and they didn't hear from her. That the term "abortion" was included in the reason for this search makes little difference to what actually happened, because the reason listed could be anything, this is just what her family reported.
The problem is this database exists at all, but the example listed here is not a good one to highlight the evil this sort of surveillance can perpetuate, because the outcome here is "woman found safe."
Fair enough, sorta. Let's agree was search was not initiated by the abortion, but at least one cop used it that way.