Kevin Cloud

Trying to live and enjoy life to the best of my ability

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

PSA: You can call me a "bootlicker" and tell me "sybau", but just know, if that is your whole counter response to one of my arguments, I just take that as your white flag of surrender.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Wait there is money in this, how do I get paid?

My problem is that the only true argument people have against ALPRs is that they fear this will lead to actual mass surveillance and violations of privacy. Every other argument made is easily shot down with logic. So every Anti-Flocker is truly just experiencing anxiety that our judicial system will stop upholding the constitution, which if they do, there is far more concerning things worry about than pictures of cars driving down public roads.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@AnonJourna96897 And how do you define mass surveillance?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Sorry, have to respond this way because windigo couldn't handle logical arguments and blocked me. There is a major difference between being truly oppressed under a tyrannical government that appoints your politicians for you, and committing criminal acts because you are afraid of what could potentially happen. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people willing to die in a revolution over cameras capturing and cataloging publicly observable images. Also, the founding fathers took many steps prior to declaring independence, trying to have their grievances heard but nothing changed. The criminal act was the final option. Public backlash has already had an impact as we see cities canceling contracts and federal politicians weighing in with anti-ALPR bills. Encouraging people to risk their freedom so that others can simply have peace of mind is quite ridiculous.

[Blood * Wealth * Soil @bloodwealthsoil]

@DuoNevik @WENDIGO_420x Uh, yes. That is my view. It's also the view of the founders since breaking away from England was illegal.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

I will have to respond this way because Ole Windigo blocked me after not being able to come up with logical responses. While standing up for ones morals is admirable, the problem here is that morality is objective. Your moral viewpoints dont automatically align with the world. If everyone started committing criminal acts or acts of violence in the name of morality, then we are back at the crusades. Now with all three examples you gave, they weren't changed because of criminal action, they were changed through new laws and amendments. We already see that collective pushback from citizens has led to cities canceling contracts and politicians on both sides of the aisle introducing anti-ALPR bills. So why encourage people to risk their freedom when the only potential positive impacte for the vast majority of americans is just peace of mind?

[HeavilyRecruitd @HeavilyRecruitd]

@DuoNevik @WENDIGO_420x Just because it's law doesn't mean it's moral and right. Slavery was law. Turning in Jews was law. Black codes were law.

Preserving liberty is more moral than obeying unjust laws.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

How do you go from, supporting license plate readers covering .04% of US roads to me wanting global surveillance? You are still basing your argument off of fear instead of logic. Let me help you out with why your fear is irrational. The courts have already indicated that true mass surveillance(not the current ALPR coverage) would be a constitutional violation. That means your fear of mass surveillance would require the judicial branch to stop upholding the constutution, which if that happens, your fear should not be around knowledge that can be gained through public observation, but the private information stored on personal devices. We already know the government can access phone data easily from the Snowden disclosures, so all we can do is trust that the judicial branch upholds the laws and the constitution to stop truly private intrusions.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Yes it has been ruled time and time again that they dont violate the 4th. I also see a number of people that support them, so you simply are saying your opinion matters more than others. Also, recording ~.04% of public roadways is no where near akin to mass surveillance. There is no current argument against them other than invoking fear, and we all know emotional arguments are inferior to logical ones. You're worried about mass surveillance but I am sure still use a cell phone, still use credit cards, order things online and allow for medical records to be stored digitally, and you have a warm fuzzy inside about the protection around that data because the government doesnt allow itself to access it (openly) with out giving itself permission. Yet you believe that same government would ignore that data and instead create a mass public camera network to track you. Come on.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Sounds like a pretty emotional argument to me. Hey didn't liberals recently have some event called a "No Kings Rally" where they wanted to get rid of........oh that's right, tyrants and the right made fun of them? Also tyrants and "bootlickers" tend to be on the same side so i dont see how silencing "bootlickers" separates them from the "tyrants".

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Probably because it is a stupid question. The collection of the data isnt what the officers got in trouble for, it was the improper access and use of that data for personal benefit. If you think the police departments has officers searching the license plate numbers of every car in their jurisdiction on a daily basis, you are delusional.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@orcawhale I knew you were a troll, I even provided you with the case law and you still out here claiming 4th amendment violations 🤣🤣. You might what to have your psychiatrist up your medication, or start seeing one if you haven't yet.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

If your research can easily have holes poked in it, then it stands to reason that it isn't very solid. Now, I am not saying that 6G won't bring with it the ability to sense and map the environment, but your implication was that this is going to be used to track and identify individuals. There definitely could be some privacy implications if the technology was used to identify occupancy within private dwellings, though I am sure that would be quickly litigated. Also what the AI response that I called out says, is not that ISAC is conceptual, which you seem to have inferred from my comment, but that tracking of human vitals in an unconstrained environment was conceptual.

For your sources. 3 of them you already posted so I don't know why you would post again. 1st, the video of Trump, he is making a joke, not stating what the government is planning to do. 2nd, as I pointed out already, the AI response is pointing to a social media post which is not a reliable source. 3rd, the implantation technology in the WH post, is talking about the enhancements of already existing technology in the medical field. While some companies will I am sure explore other uses for implant technology, it is a longshot that courts will uphold implant requirements that will allow for individual tracking. and 4th, Neuralink already exists and uses Bluetooth to communicate with devices. It is also an optional tech that helps individuals with serious medical ailments. None of this loops back around to the fact that having ALPRs covering ~.04% of roadways is a gateway to the government using brain implants to track the population.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@truthisgreatest @Rentalcarman914 @albynospyder You do realize that the source for the section you highlighted is an Instagram post right? Make sure when you prompt AI searches you ask for reliable sources. Also the section right below that says the technology is conceptual and not currently practical.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Except violations of the constitution are a matter of fact based off precedent. Stating something is a violation when in current standing it is not, is not opinion but a false statement. Even if you but "currently allowed" at the end. Now if you wanted to say that you feel the circuit courts got it wrong and would like to see those opinions over turned, that would be your opinion. I would suggest though if you want to be taken seriously, you bring a legitimate argument with you to support your opinion other than just incompetence and fear.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Except owning and driving your personal vehicle is also a choice. No one HAS to drive a vehicle belonging to them, there are many other modes of transportation. Also, how are you an MD and can't read a court decision? Every federal court that has heard ALPR specific cases has ruled unamiously that ALPRs are not a violation of the constitution. Maybe if you would like to be taken seriously, use logical and factual arguments to compel your case.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Which means that it isn't a violation of the 4th until a ruling overturns the precedent. Going around saying things are a violation of your rights when every Court disagrees with you shows your ignorance, seeing as how your rights only truly exist if these courts say they do. And seeing as how the 5th, 9th and 11th all ruled unamiously that capturing and accessing the data wasn't a violation and the standing Supreme Court ruling in US v. Knotts was a 9-0 decision, I doubt the Supreme Court will even here any case around ALPRs much less rule against them

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@Matt89940365266 @camhigby @GrizzledTexan Except that you are wrong about that and federal courts have time and time again unanimously upheld that ALPRs are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Here is your reading assignments
United States v. Porter (2026)
United States v. Yang (2020)
United States v. Mapson (2024)

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Funny that I'm the dumbass and you don't even know what the ruling said in Chatrie. First the police had a warrant to gather the geofenced location data that lead them to Chatrie. The fourth circuit didn't say that the location data wasn't Fourth Amendment protected but they said that the evidence was admissible under the good faith exception of the exclusionary rule. Meaning that if evidence is gathered violating somebody's rights though the police thought they were following the law, then it can be admissible. The Supreme Court then ruled that location history within apps falls under CSLI protections which were established in US v. Carpenter. They also didn't suppress the evidence they just sent it back down to verify that probable cause was there during the issuing of the warrant. The Supreme Court has also ruled on the trackability of a vehicle on public roads in US v. Knotts. If you need me to give you a lesson in that case just make another dumbass comment and I'll be happy to continue to inform you of how you're wrong.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@GrizzledTexan @camhigby They are. What else do you think they do?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

While I agree with you around ALPRs and the no expectation of privacy while in public, using facial recognition to identify somebody would more than likely be a violation of the fourth. While neither the Supreme Court nor any of the circuit courts have ruled on facial recognition, they have ruled that police must have legal justification to ID someone. Someone's identification isn't something strangers would be able to know just by seeing them in public. Where a license plate number and vehicle color, make, and model can all be known just through observation.