> On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with this opaque plastic cover on number plates. I think these are installed by the drivers so that they can avoid paying road toll (FL has many road tolls). I also noticed that these drivers tend to be more aggressive in driving than others (that's how I noticed their license plates are covered).
I've noticed the same thing in my area of CA. Lots of folks with different devices to obscure their plates, and a strong correlation between the obscured plates and very poor or aggressive driving.
I've started to quip that the obscured plates + tinted windows + blacked-out taillights is the "frequent moving violation starter kit".
Or "tell me you violate the rules of the road without telling me you violate the rules of the road".
> Will the same punishment be applied to those drivers?
One could imagine that's actually the targeted demographic, and not the subset of folks trying to circumvent Flock cameras.
I think flock tracks more than just the number. A plate cover is another piece of entropy that can be used just like browser fingerprinting. The tinfoil hat side of me thinks the camera aspect is a red herring and they are actually using the tire pressure sensors and other junk to do the actual tracking.
I mean, is it a problem if that's what I believe? In practice I'm not even getting "tracked". No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
In the off chance someone is looking up that information, it's probably a mistake (i.e. mistaken identity), and seeing where I've been will likely clear that up.
And in the infinitesimal chance it doesn't, I imagine motive would be really hard to establish.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have proper oversight, strong data controls, etc, but I'm not opposed to this kind of tracking on principal alone. It does have real benefits!
But personally, seeing and meeting the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them. But that's definitely bias on my part: I've known many folks in this category from the world of crypto, and 90+% of them are just trying to avoid taxes and/or scrutiny of accountability for whatever scam they're running.
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
Want to spend an hour on the side of the highway while the police search your vehicle?
> Want to spend an hour on the side of the highway while the police search your vehicle?
Again. I don't commit crimes, so this isn't likely to happen to me. And if it does, they will find nothing, and I'll be slightly inconvenienced. It'll suck, but you know what else is inconvenient? Getting bipped.
Guess which of those risks is higher, and which has changed more based on this technology?
> The principle is _Don't Tread On Me._
Pretty sure that doesn't mean what you think it means. Tracking your movements in public spaces doesn't diminish your freedom in any way, so nothing is being tread on.
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
What makes you so incredibly sure that you will never in your lifetime do a single thing that would ever draw this kind of attention, no matter who is pulling the levers of power?
I live in a country where such abuses are rare? They happen, sure, and are broadly covered when they do, but this distorts the perception of how often they happen, which is "not very often".
I also don't commit crimes, so I really don't have much to worry about.
This, coupled with the fact that I will leave the country if abuses start to become more common, gives me a lot of confidence that I indeed have nothing to worry about.
And I like the decreases in crime that these kinds of technologies drive. The downside of them can be large, sure, but the downside risk is minimal. The upside is small to medium, but is real and demonstrable.
To me, that makes it worth it, and I tire of folks who would prevent the upsides of various technologies, based on hypotheticals, vanishingly unlikely scenarios, and their own downside risks--which might, as it turns out, be large because they're the ones committing crimes?
> This, coupled with the fact that I will leave the country if abuses start to become more common, gives me a lot of confidence that I indeed have nothing to worry about.
There's a lot about your post that seemed naive, but this one takes the cake.
Given how we treat immigrants in the US, and the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment that seems to be rising throughout the world, what makes you think the world would actually want you in their country?
I've noticed the same thing in my area of CA. Lots of folks with different devices to obscure their plates, and a strong correlation between the obscured plates and very poor or aggressive driving.
I've started to quip that the obscured plates + tinted windows + blacked-out taillights is the "frequent moving violation starter kit".
Or "tell me you violate the rules of the road without telling me you violate the rules of the road".
> Will the same punishment be applied to those drivers?
One could imagine that's actually the targeted demographic, and not the subset of folks trying to circumvent Flock cameras.