Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't offer the same "whole person movement" data that a phone would when described in Carpenter.
Will be interesting to see how this goes, and I'm sure ALPR density may play a part in it, but for now I don't think it violates someone's privacy under the 4th amendment.
This debate also ties heavily into one around the surveillance network created via camera networks like Ring.
If this were an app - Location sharing by default has been set to 25 miles, I’d prefer it to be OFF.
xhkkffbf•54m ago
cwmoore•43m ago
Zircom•40m ago
The problem is that this state mandated visible identifier is then used by them to constantly track where you go. So the question is do you have the right to not have the government tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime?
calebio•11m ago
> do you have the right to not have [a private company] tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime?
And
> do you have the right for the government to not purchase that data from [a private company]?
fragmede•36m ago
Historically, it has not been possible to do that. That technology makes it possible for that to be possible should be balanced with the fact that it wasn't remotely practical.