Alarmed by the reach and rapid expansion of these cameras, privacy advocates have filed suit in Illinois, saying the cameras violate the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable search. They say it amounts to a national surveillance system of innocent drivers. “This system has brought Big Brother to Illinois,” said plaintiff Stephanie Scholl of Chicago.
You know what else would also solve crimes is not making police get search warrants. I guess that would be a good idea to abolish the fourth amendment in the name of solving crimes and finding criminals?
Hello, Indiana.
1 year ago
Some folks feel that too many of the folks in their communities are being pulled over. Let’s forget for a moment that police really can’t tell who is in the car, courtesy of seats that recline like beds and tinted windows. Let’s forget that most policemen really don’t want a lot of grief for being shown to only stop people of a certain segment of the population, something that would probably cost them their jobs and any assets they have. Let’s forget that certain vehicles are known to have reams of unpaid traffic tickets. Let’s just focus on the license… Read more »
Isn’t Illinois Fun?
1 year ago
Privacy concerns? I get that but that barn door has been wide open for decades. There is no presumption of privacy in public. Private companies use ALPRs, public and private commercial use of security cameras, cell phones can take pictures and leave a real time data and location trail, your car itself leaves a data trail back to manufacturers and insurance companies, there are red light cameras, speed cameras, Ring doorbells, tollway transponders, Tesla 360 cameras, dash mounted cameras on private and commercial vehicles. Many trucking companies have systems that monitor driver habits, braking, acceleration and speed. So no, privacy… Read more »
I guess you’re not familiar with the constitution. Just because the government has abridged these rights in other aspects of our lives doesn’t mean we should let it continue. The fact remains that per the constitution, the government has no need or authority to track and record our comings and goings, not matter how noble the cause. There are many things that can make the police’s job easier to do but we should all favor and value our rights over and above helping the police do their jobs easier.
Virtually every example you’ve given deals with the private sector. The point is the government should not be tracking our every move. If law enforcement needs video from private sector cameras there are ways they can get it.
Deb
1 year ago
Of course the Dems object to these. Democrats protect criminals. If you’re not doing anything wrong, who cares?
Umm…? Most of the people who are paranoid (without understanding or knowledge of how LPRs and other cameras — many of which are private — actually work, and how they are used by Depts of Transportation, emergency management, and police, are right-wing, conspiracty-theory, libertarian, anti-govt, Republicans, not Democrats!
A largely unasked question is becoming glaring: Is Illinois doing all it should to use artificial intelligence to make government cost less and work better? So far, the evidence says no.
You know what else would also solve crimes is not making police get search warrants. I guess that would be a good idea to abolish the fourth amendment in the name of solving crimes and finding criminals?
Some folks feel that too many of the folks in their communities are being pulled over. Let’s forget for a moment that police really can’t tell who is in the car, courtesy of seats that recline like beds and tinted windows. Let’s forget that most policemen really don’t want a lot of grief for being shown to only stop people of a certain segment of the population, something that would probably cost them their jobs and any assets they have. Let’s forget that certain vehicles are known to have reams of unpaid traffic tickets. Let’s just focus on the license… Read more »
Privacy concerns? I get that but that barn door has been wide open for decades. There is no presumption of privacy in public. Private companies use ALPRs, public and private commercial use of security cameras, cell phones can take pictures and leave a real time data and location trail, your car itself leaves a data trail back to manufacturers and insurance companies, there are red light cameras, speed cameras, Ring doorbells, tollway transponders, Tesla 360 cameras, dash mounted cameras on private and commercial vehicles. Many trucking companies have systems that monitor driver habits, braking, acceleration and speed. So no, privacy… Read more »
I guess you’re not familiar with the constitution. Just because the government has abridged these rights in other aspects of our lives doesn’t mean we should let it continue. The fact remains that per the constitution, the government has no need or authority to track and record our comings and goings, not matter how noble the cause. There are many things that can make the police’s job easier to do but we should all favor and value our rights over and above helping the police do their jobs easier.
So banning license plate readers is going to be the first step in restoring privacy from all these other ways of monitoring behavior?
You’re a windbag blowing smoke. Do you really believe that you’re being tracked by these cameras? Put on the tinfoil hat or take your medications.
Virtually every example you’ve given deals with the private sector. The point is the government should not be tracking our every move. If law enforcement needs video from private sector cameras there are ways they can get it.
Of course the Dems object to these. Democrats protect criminals. If you’re not doing anything wrong, who cares?
Umm…? Most of the people who are paranoid (without understanding or knowledge of how LPRs and other cameras — many of which are private — actually work, and how they are used by Depts of Transportation, emergency management, and police, are right-wing, conspiracty-theory, libertarian, anti-govt, Republicans, not Democrats!