Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday December 06 2015, @07:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the goose-and-gander dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Monday December 07 2015, @03:22AM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Monday December 07 2015, @03:22AM (#272721)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @06:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @06:30AM (#272779)

    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]:

    From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @06:40AM (#272789)

      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.