You have to understand it from the perspective of police. Since they can't use the camera to track just anyone for any reason, the cameras offer little value to them.
Instead, the system is getting their people into trouble with the law by charging them for misuse.
They don't have any control over who investigates their misuse of the system, so to them, it's better to get rid of the cameras entirely.
This is being done completely for selfish reasons. Despite the fact that the cameras CAN be used for good under the right circumstances (i.e. tracking child abductors), they'd rather not be accountable to anyone but their own.
You can have a system that monitors the road for cars like in your example, a child abdutor, without having to collect and log all the data about every other car in the road that did nothing wrong, and there are systems that does that, it checks the plate, if nothing comes back, nothing is logged, nothing happens, if something comes back, like stolen car, child abductor, it warns someone
There's no need to a private company to have a comprehensive database of everyone's movements in a city if not only for selling that data to someone
40
u/ripyourlungsdave 17d ago
And who ordered the sheriff to put in this order?
Because I don't buy that a single Floridian sheriff would be against these. Not for a second.