I saw it happen during Katrina. Neighborhoods within an easy drive of each other where one had power, and the other not. Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power.
It’s niche just because natural disasters are thankfully relatively rare, but I still think having good contingencies is worth it.
> Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power
Electric vehicles won't, ever, be prioritized over bringing up residential, commercial and emergency services. The fact that even on a super charger it's 20+ minutes to charge a Cybertruck means the two or three at the local gas station will just end up with 12+ hour lines. Even now generators are fueled before private vehicles.
Bringing up power after disasters is super dangerous as is. A lot of systems that hadn't been turned off in years do a cold start, and sparks fly. It's why the power company and fire departments coordinate very very closely on grid work.
You know someone's going to try and bypass any safeties and circuit breakers and end up taking down their house when they try to restore power after a flood or something. People already regularly die from running their generator in the garage and most of these aren't wired directly into house mains.
The data can still be sold to other municipalities. That’s kind of the problem here, handling this as anything other than a privacy violation, because anything else allows them to just lease private land to install them, then sell the data to whoever wants it. But the US has been anti privacy for a while now.
I think that’s the underlying criticism. If the enterprise is risky, speculative, or just straight up bullshit, then selling the shovels is the smartest move.
Well I mean the state does have the monopoly on violence.
In a functioning state, anyway.
So yeah, of course rules are different for normal people compared with people that have a special role as assigned by the democratically legitimized system.
Technically yes, but it's not without many caveats, and often depends on what you're doing with the recordings. See https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/ for _some_ of the complexities. (Note: freedomforum.org is a US site concerned with US laws, but the incident in the main post was in Canada, so not everything is the same, but Canada also has caveats/restrictions on such recording.)
Most of those caveats are about spaces that aren't actually public, or recording audio. When it comes to pure surveillance-style video recording in actual public spaces, there's not much in the way of restrictions, and nothing where police have special privileges.
reply