The cameras are central to the privacy aspect, not the cars.
A car can be identified by its plates, while a pedestrian can be identified by their face or other features. Perhaps not today by some legal or technical difficulty, but the infrastructure to do so is in place.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. One might not reasonably expect that one's photograph should not be taken in public, but one may reasonably expect not to have one's every move recorded, profiled, indefinitely stored and shared with various third parties, or to have one's every conversation on the phone or with other people recorded with sophisticated cameras or sensors, and for that to be attached to one's detailed profile.
What is described is a surveillance state, which anyone who values some degree of personal freedom will reasonably object to. The installment of sophisticated cameras capable of tracking one's movement throughout an entire country provides the means for such surveillance state, and should be strongly objected by anyone who values one's personal freedom.
Those in favor of such installment for the facilitation of criminal persecution should at the very least require strong guarantees about its usage, such as storage limits and regular public audits of such implementation, closed circuits instead of publicly networked solutions, etc, and strongly oppose any arrangements that do not fulfill stringent privacy requirements. Unfortunately I am yet to see any real person advocate for this with any real political strength.
A car can be identified by its plates, while a pedestrian can be identified by their face or other features. Perhaps not today by some legal or technical difficulty, but the infrastructure to do so is in place.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. One might not reasonably expect that one's photograph should not be taken in public, but one may reasonably expect not to have one's every move recorded, profiled, indefinitely stored and shared with various third parties, or to have one's every conversation on the phone or with other people recorded with sophisticated cameras or sensors, and for that to be attached to one's detailed profile.
What is described is a surveillance state, which anyone who values some degree of personal freedom will reasonably object to. The installment of sophisticated cameras capable of tracking one's movement throughout an entire country provides the means for such surveillance state, and should be strongly objected by anyone who values one's personal freedom.
Those in favor of such installment for the facilitation of criminal persecution should at the very least require strong guarantees about its usage, such as storage limits and regular public audits of such implementation, closed circuits instead of publicly networked solutions, etc, and strongly oppose any arrangements that do not fulfill stringent privacy requirements. Unfortunately I am yet to see any real person advocate for this with any real political strength.