• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2026

help-circle


  • It’s not really about ALPRs though. ALPRs have been in use in some form since the 1970s. The issue is the information they gather and where it goes.

    This focused hatred of “ALPRs” is good in the short term to drive change but not in the long term for sustainable action.

    For example, all consumer automobiles in the US require front-facing collision avoidance cameras by 2029 under federal automotive safety laws. Tack an ALPR system on, use the built in cellular and satellite collections and all of a sudden every vehicle becomes an ALPR camera on wheels.

    People are filmed and photographed all the time these days; think things like business CCTV, home camera systems like Ring, pre-existing DOT cameras, dash cams, people filming their lives and everywhere they go etc. etc.

    In the long term people need to control the collection and use of the data and establish some significant penalties for misuse. It would be nice if, in the US, we could establish that any data gathered by ALPRs is covered under the 4th amendment and require a warrant for starters.

    I also think the data should be required to be stored by the government agency utilizing it, no third parties.




  • is one of the main reasons why new cars today aren’t as reliable as ones from the early 2000’s.

    I’m curious about the data that supports this claim? I’ve often heard people lament how cars have “gotten worse” or aren’t “as reliable” as they used to be but I recently read an article from Worse on Purpose that highlights how cars are better manufactured than they used to be.

    Or are you using reliability to refer to the accessories and features newer cars have that can fail or require more difficult repair without actually impacting a modern vehicles primary function of transport?









  • GDPR is a law with real legal consequences that protects EU citizens (EU as in European Union).

    Do European citizens frequently turn to an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” for their news?

    Do you spouse it’s easier for a local or regional organization to set policy to block warn GDPR covered connections or have someone spend time ensuring the site is GDPR compliant for the 1s? 10s? 100s? of hits they get?


  • they don’t need to retrofit their entire website.

    Except they do, because even if they’re pretty certain their site is compliant with GDPR they’d still have to review the code to make certain it is or risk legal liability if anything isn’t.

    Many small to medium organizations that aren’t operating outside of the USA chose to just block connections instead.

    Is there a lot of people outside the US checking an “affiliate for the Duluth-Superior broadcast area, which covers northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the western portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” regularly for their news?