🤖 AI Summary
EFFは、FlockのアルPRデータ検索に関する新しい規則について「遅すぎるし不十分」と批判しており、これはFlockの技術に必要な改革を認めていると解釈しています。EFFの立場として、警察が特定の車両の歴史的なALPRデータを探したい場合、最低限でも裁判所署名付きの warrants の取得が必要であるべきだと主張してきました。
Flockはこれらの最新の改正を取り消す可能性があり、この問題はもっと重要な点へとつながります。私たちが十分なプライバシーを確保する権利をどの程度にすべきかは企業に任せることは適切ではないということです。警察が数百万乃至数十億人の無関係な人々についてのデータを収集・保持できる期間を決めるべきは法整備者の側であると主張しています。
結局、監視ビジネスモデル自体が問題であり、何社かの企業による一時的な改革では変化は望めないと指摘しています。
Some take their criticism even further. Reacting to Flock's changes, an EFF statement calls it "Too little, too late," while calling it Flock's admission that their technology needs reforms. But...
To be clear, our position has long been that police, at a minimum, need to get a warrant, signed by a judge, in order to search for historic ALPR data regarding specific vehicles. For us, it's common sense: if police want to dip into historic ALPR data like they were going back in time to retroactively follow your comings and goings, they need a warrant.
There's also nothing stopping Flock from rescinding these latest reforms.
This all leads to the bigger and more important issue: We should not be letting companies decide how much privacy we deserve... It shouldn't be up to Flock or any other ALPR vendor to decide how long police can collect and retain data on millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent people. We need lawmakers to step up and pass laws that restrict police's use of surveillance technology.
After all, the surveillance business model is the problem, and a few company-imposed slapdash reforms aren't going to change that.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
ログイン