Privacy

2816 readers

303 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.

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

543

She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down. (www.eff.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by technocrit to c/privacy

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, 404 Media recently revealed that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sorry but no there is no difference other than the words you use to describe them. Camera networks is surveillance.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

A bunch of privately owned camera systems and one controlled by the government are vastly different.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

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