- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Kansas man is fighting ALPR cameras in Wichita court
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:30 am
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:30 am
Suing under the state constitution, not the fourth amendment.
News article/video
News article/video
quote:
"Typically, when the government wants to conduct surveillance, they have to get a warrant; there has to be judicial authorization; they have to go to a judge and explain why they want to conduct surveillance, but not in this instance," MacRoberts said.
quote:
"Police have already abused this technology, they've already showed that they can't be trusted with it," he said. For example, these are just some of the cases KAKE News has covered in recent years across the state. Affidavit: Former Kansas detective used license plate cameras to stalk wife Kechi officer used license plate reader tech to track estranged wife, police say Sedgwick police chief tracked ex-girlfriend 164 times using license plate cams That's why MacRoberts says they're hoping to end warrantless surveillance of Flock cameras. "Mason is not suing for money; what he's doing is fighting back against Wichita's warrantless ALPR Dragnet Surveillance Program," MacRoberts said.
This post was edited on 7/31/26 at 7:28 pm
7
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:31 am to midwestTiger20
quote:
Kansas man is fighting Flock
A lot of us still fighting Foo need to wake up.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:40 am to midwestTiger20
It is my understanding that if you’re in a public space, you forfeit all expectations of privacy
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:42 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
It is my understanding that if you’re in a public space, you forfeit all expectations of privacy
Pretty much. Everyone trying to squelch Nick Shirley finds out soon enough.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:47 am to midwestTiger20
Glad to see at least someone is trying to fight the good fight. It won’t work, but I hope something changes because of stuff like this. It feels like It’s becoming a totalitarian police state sometimes.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:48 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
It is my understanding that if you’re in a public space, you forfeit all expectations of privacy
You cant yell fire in a crowded theatre either. There has to be a line somewhere. yes, anyone can take your picture when you are out and about. Its very different when its some Baw on vacation from Taipei vs jackboot fricks tracking their wives or lovers as they go on about their day.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 12:02 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:Being observed, photographed, or filmed while out in public is a far cry from your whereabouts being known to the government at all times, with searchable history stored forever. If your stance is "anything goes" once you step outside your home, then what goes on inside your home can for the most part be deduced. The aggregate of where you go and who you are with, at almost all times and over years, can reveal deeply personal shite. Your religious and political views, your health, your finances, your network of acquaintances, and on and on.
It is my understanding that if you’re in a public space, you forfeit all expectations of privacy
There is an enormous difference between *an* instance of you being out in public being known, and *every* instance of you being out in public being known, recorded, aggregated, and analyzed.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 12:13 pm to Korkstand
You are correct.
Its called Mosaic Theory.
Its called Mosaic Theory.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 1:30 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Being observed, photographed, or filmed while out in public is a far cry from your whereabouts being known to the government at all times, with searchable history stored forever.
Did you read your agreement with Apple?
Posted on 7/31/26 at 1:32 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Did you read your agreement with Apple?
Government has to get a warrant to get that information.
This is freely searchable by anybody within a police department, at any time.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 1:33 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Did you read your agreement with Apple?
Did you read your agreement with the government?
Posted on 7/31/26 at 1:56 pm to midwestTiger20
quote:
Kansas man is fighting ALPR cameras in Wichita
There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
When they are used to capture known criminals, or people in the process of committing crimes, then I'm totally fine with it. Or for monitoring traffic patterns where the identity of the cars being monitored is kept confidential and not recorded.
LEO using them for personal reasons is a no go, and they are obviously being caught and prosecuted for it.
But using personally identifiable data for commercial or "research" purposes should be banned. That concept is used in medical documentation. It is illegal to access or utilize PII (personally identifiable information).
Posted on 7/31/26 at 2:00 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Being observed, photographed, or filmed while out in public is a far cry from your whereabouts being known to the government at all times, with searchable history stored forever.
It’s not.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 2:09 pm to midwestTiger20
Yall won’t butch when a family member is a victim of a violent crime and a LPR camera catches the Perp. A LPR helped find a neighbor with dementia who drove and got lost. Found her 40 miles away 20 minutes after being reported missing.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 2:38 pm to brass2mouth
quote:quote:It’s not.
Being observed, photographed, or filmed while out in public is a far cry from your whereabouts being known to the government at all times, with searchable history stored forever.
It's the difference between people driving by to observe your home, or even staking out your home, vs. installing a camera permanently pointed at your home. You wouldn't have a problem with the latter?
Posted on 7/31/26 at 2:40 pm to Boston911
quote:As with weapons or really any tool, there are legit good uses and bad ones. I don't think people have a problem with the technology so much as they have a problem with how it's being used and how it looks like they're prepping to go further in that bad direction.
Yall won’t butch when a family member is a victim of a violent crime and a LPR camera catches the Perp. A LPR helped find a neighbor with dementia who drove and got lost. Found her 40 miles away 20 minutes after being reported missing.
This post was edited on 7/31/26 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:02 pm to Korkstand
quote:
the difference between people driving by to observe your home, or even staking out your home, vs. installing a camera permanently pointed at your home. You wouldn't have a problem with the latter?
What I would/wouldn’t have a problem with vs what is completely legal are two different things.
People are confusing what they have a problem with as being illegal, when it’s not. I’m not a huge fan of the “surveillance state” but if you haven’t noticed you’re recorded nearly anytime you walk outside either by Real Time Crime Camera (think the flashing blue/red lights you see in NOLA/BR and various other areas), an LPR, or your neighbor’s camera and it’s all 100% legal.
USSC has rules several times that your license plate on your vehicle on a public roadway is not private information and police can query your plate simple by seeing you on the roadway.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:13 pm to brass2mouth
quote:Whether this is "completely legal" is up for debate.
What I would/wouldn’t have a problem with vs what is completely legal are two different things.
People are confusing what they have a problem with as being illegal, when it’s not.
quote:Yes, no problem whatsoever with protecting private and public property. That's not what this is about.
I’m not a huge fan of the “surveillance state” but if you haven’t noticed you’re recorded nearly anytime you walk outside either by Real Time Crime Camera (think the flashing blue/red lights you see in NOLA/BR and various other areas), an LPR, or your neighbor’s camera and it’s all 100% legal.
quote:It has also ruled that gathering long-term location data constitutes a search which requires a warrant.
USSC has rules several times that your license plate on your vehicle on a public roadway is not private information and police can query your plate simple by seeing you on the roadway.
Querying a plate is not a problem. The attaching of mountains of location data to that plate, and providing it to law enforcement on a whim, is the problem.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:53 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Yes, no problem whatsoever with protecting private and public property. That's not what this is about.
I’m confused. You’re ok with the government tracking you when you’re walking around your neighborhood, but not when you’re driving?
quote:
has also ruled that gathering long-term location data constitutes a search which requires a warrant.
What case are you referring to? Carpenter? Because that pertains to cell phones.
Not you driving on a public road.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 6:01 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
It’s not.
Eat shite, pig.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News