This is a reasonable viewpoint.

As we're thinking this through, however, we need to be extremely careful about what parts are actually undesirable. We probably don't want to create a society where it's technically illegal to sit in a park and write poems inspired by people passing by, or to take photos that happen to include a license plate or a person, or to get them published in a magazine.

We need to figure out what the "bad" part is, and restrict only that.

That depends on the circumstances.

If John was posing an imminent threat to your life, then you might have a justifiable self-defense excuse.

In our society, killing people, in general, is illegal (and immoral, and unacceptable, and unaccepted).

The United States Declaration of Independence specifically lists "life" as an inalienable right, and last I checked, DC was within US jurisdiction. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution already recognizes an intrinsic right to life ("...nor be deprived of life... without due process of law.").

No fundamental change is necessary; it's already in there.

I saw his car in the parking lot yesterday, too, so I'm pretty sure he was here yesterday.

As has been often lamented around here, a crime doesn't automatically become more heinous simply because a computer (or other technology) is involved. (Think... bank robbery by "hacking" instead of walking in with a note.) By the same standard, an acceptable act really doesn't become unacceptable just because it's automated.

If it's OK for me to drive around looking for someone's car, it is similarly OK for you to do the same. If it's OK for me to take pictures (or videos) while on a public street, it's OK for you to do the same. I'm pretty sure that if you or I found something interesting in our travels, we could take out our notebooks and write something about where we where, and when, and what we saw. We don't get to say that it's not OK for another private individual to drive around and take pictures just because they're going to use a computer to review the pictures and possibly highlight features of interest.

You say the subject may be more nuanced than I suggest; I don't think so. If action A is acceptable, and action B is acceptable, and action C is acceptable, how could doing all three together be unacceptable?

The reference

Thanks.

Explain the difference. In the latter case, I'm using tools to more efficiently observe what is going on in public, and reporting those observations to interested parties.

What's next, singing "Preserve us from the Wheel" in church?

Around here, corporations are private citizens.

RF doesn't always need line of sight to be effective. Don't need the cars to park at least 3 feet apart to get a good glimpse of the tag from the side as driving by.

So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?

I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to privacy in public.

At that vintage, Wordstar is more likely.

I, for one, try not to keep barrels of shit in the living room.

Subterranean storage seems like a good idea. Since I don't have a cave to put barrels in, burying them seems reasonable.

Will they discover what electric sheep dream of?

Engraving on a removable panel sort of defeats the purpose...

I imagine this makes dating and courtship more interesting.