@eff @Adam_D_Schwartz @FirewallDragons I was very glad to hear Adam at 38:55 talking about how we should frequently reexamine the rules that secure our rights, in order to determine whether those rules are still adequate given recent technological developments. This point sort of looms in the background of any discussion related to privacy law these days, but it's rarely voiced directly.

On the other hand, I'm very disappointed in how timid the EFF's stance on ALPRs is. At 16:26, Adam says, "What should the public know about the surveillance technology that the government is using to spy on the public? And at the EFF, we think the answer should be, 'Everything.'" No, no, no! The answer should be, "The government cannot spy on the public!" If you ask me, no form of dragnet surveillance should exist.

For a comparison, and as Adam also points out at 50:43, there are a few technologies that the EFF hopes to ban entirely, including personalized/behavioural advertising. I remember when I first learned about that, I was shocked and extremely impressed that the EFF would be so bold as to plant their flag on a hill that essentially no one else is even discussing the possibility of trying to take. Why not do the same with ALPRs? Surely banning them would be less disruptive to current practices than banning personalized advertising would be!

#ALPR #behavioralAdvertising #disclosure #humanRights #privacy #surveillance #technology #transparency

This week, I've got a followup about another important way to unrig the ad market: banning #SurveillanceAds:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

Even if we break up the ad-tech stacks, ads will still be bad for the news - and for the public. That's because the dominant form of digital ads is "#BehavioralAdvertising" - the ad-tech sector's polite euphemism for ads based on spying. You know these ads: you search for shoes and then every website you land on is plastered in shoe ads.

6/