it's not unnoticed, it's just not illegal. And how often do you notice cameras?
There's no constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade overturned, remember), it's legal to photograph people in public in that country, and doing something legal 60 times per second in 170 locations automatically doesn't make it illegal.
The police following one person’s car isn’t unconstitutional, but following everyone’s cars very much is. The IJ press release mentions this: the 4th Circuit (which covers Virginia) ruled several years ago that Baltimore’s near-continuous aerial surveillance was unconstitutional in part because it “ transcends mere augmentation of ordinary police capabilities.” I think there’s an entirely reasonable argument to be made that what the City of Norfolk is doing by contracting Flock to create a database of where every car has been for the past 30 days similarly crosses that line.
Except as the article noted previous courts have ruled that prolonged and detailed surveillance can constitute a search and is protected by the fourth amendment.
I'm not sure, but it's probably not too far of a stretch to call this surveillance harassment. Sure, if I'm walking down the street on public property and film houses and people, it's fine. If I showed up every day in front of your house and set up a camera to watch you, your family, and property... I'm pretty sure I could get a restraining order as it's a pattern of intimidation, stalking, and/or harassment. These cameras are there to threaten you.
Doesn't "under color of law" mean that it is unlawful, just appears to be lawful?
"“Under color of law” refers to actions taken by government officials (such as police officers or public officials) that are done in their official capacity but violate someone’s rights or are unlawful. These actions appear legal because the person is using their official authority, but in reality, they can be an abuse of power or a violation of laws or civil rights.
In the United States, such actions can lead to legal consequences under federal law, particularly 42 U.S. Code § 1983, which allows people to sue for civil rights violations committed under color of law." - ChatGPT
>Doesn't "under color of law" mean that it is unlawful, just appears to be lawful?
Which is exactly the category that "basically stalking, but don't worry we're the government so it's fine" would fall into since "basically stalking" is illegal generally.
The "article" obviously takes a maximalist interpretation of their own position. Libertarians think license plates are unconstitutional altogether, so it can't be a surprise that IJ wants ALPRs outlawed.
There's no constitutional right to privacy (Roe v Wade overturned, remember), it's legal to photograph people in public in that country, and doing something legal 60 times per second in 170 locations automatically doesn't make it illegal.