SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
If you have an IP-enabled security camera, you can download some free, open-source software from GitHub and boom—you have a fully functional automated license plate reader, reports ArsTechnica .
Matt Hill, OpenALPR's founder, told Ars technica "I'm a big privacy advocate... now you've got LPR just in the hands of the government, which isn't a good thing."
Will "they" like it when "we" have a crowdsourced database of where and when congressmen, judges and cops go throughout their work day?
Does this level the playing field? Open yet another can of worms? Both?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Open Source License Plate Reader: Little Brother Strikes Back!
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 86 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
QOTD:
The forest may be quiet, but that doesn't mean
the snakes have gone away.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 06 2015, @11:24PM
The issue is that there is the 2nd Amendment
No it's not. The issue here is a gun culture in the US that dates back 400 years. The 2nd amendment is a symptom of that culture, and attacking the symptoms rarely works.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2015, @12:23AM
"attacking the symptoms rarely works."
I agree. So, the solution would be to kill off all the progressives who happen to be hoplophobes? I could learn to like your thinking . . .
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday December 07 2015, @02:15AM
Right now, you're rights to privacy, freedom of speech/religion/press, to a public trial, and guns are all protected by the same document. You fuck with that document on one issue, you fuck with it on all issues. The history doesn't matter -- the issue is whether the government is or is not bound by the Constitution.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @02:47AM
Except that this innate "fundamental" right for a person to own a gun goes back a whopping 30 to 40 years. For the previous several hundred years before that the 2nd was a "dead" amendment, meaning that the courts at all levels agreed on what it meant and that there wasn't any challenges based upon it. It wasn't until the NRA pumped millions and millions of dollars into lobbying, sponsoring "2nd Amendment" law professorships, etc. that suddenly there was this epiphany in this dead amendment. A Chief Justice who served for a good deal of the 20th century called the NRA actions a fraud perpetuated on the people.
It is really pathetic to hear people buy into this "fundamental protection" that has been recognized as such for, what, four years now?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 07 2015, @02:51AM
Liar.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Monday December 07 2015, @03:22AM
This is completely revisionist history and has no basis in fact.
In the era when cannons were the highest level of sophisticated siege weaponry, citizens can and did own them for their own purposes and militia. In fact the truth is the polar opposite of what you stated: it wasn't until comparatively recently (1934 - registration and taxation; 1986 - significantly more burden before purchase) that there was any limitation whatsoever on the private ownership and use of weapons of practically any sort.
If you want to play, we're going to play with facts. Your move.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @06:30AM
Wow. "No basis in fact." You mean the NRA didn't fund a professorship [gmu.edu] to "educate people about the 2nd Amendment"?
Do you mean that former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative judge mind you, didn't describe the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun a fraud on the American public [wikipedia.org]?
You mean it wasn't a dead amendment [brennancenter.org]:
I've got lots of "facts" [pace.edu] (see footnote #3 for instance). Just what the fuck do you have for "facts"? I've got law journals. I've got historians. I'VE GOT A FUCKING CHIEF JUSTICE. What the fuck do you have?
"we're going to play with facts" Are you really that full of yourself? You ain't got shit. It isn't my move, because you're not even in the game, junior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @06:40AM
What the fuck do you have?
The constitution. When the second amendment mentions "the people", it is describing an individual right, just as it did in many other instances. The mere fact that it mentions a well-regulated militia as one reason it was written does not mean that the right hinges on that reason and that reason alone. That was just one justification given.
You're making a mistake here. That the government routinely did not follow the constitution in the past (and still does not do so) does not mean we should continue that tradition. Even the founders violated the constitution in some ways, but we should not follow their example.
If you want the second amendment changed, the only honest way is a constitutional amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @03:26AM
> the issue is whether the government is or is not bound by the Constitution.
Such absolutism. Seems like that sort of attitude has been in the news a lot recently.
In case you haven't noticed, the constitution has been interpreted and reinterpreted ever since it was first ratified. That's human nature - no document is sufficiently complete to cover all real-world cases, otherwise the document would be of infinite length. So, the "fuck with that document" train left the station a long time ago and really, anyone who thought it wouldn't was delusional.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 07 2015, @03:36AM
The constitution is not an unchanging document; that's why it can be amended. If the government wants powers the constitution did not grant it, it needs to write a constitutional amendment. A government that violates the highest law of the land is not legitimate; it's more akin to a group of thugs that uses force to get its way.
So no, we don't need to cover all real-world cases, because the document can be amended. There is some ambiguity that gives us some wiggle room, but the government has gone far beyond that in many instances and is simply violating the constitution with impunity.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday December 07 2015, @05:00AM
I agree that the train of constitution fuckers left the station years ago and its riders are presently so high on coke and v.iagra that the future of America as constitutional republic is basically hopeless -- especially so when the people the constitution is designed to protect are so willing to roll over and take it up the butt sans lube.