Many US cities use license plate tracking, even on parked cars. Even if they normally delete the data after a few days, there is no telling which other agencies might have got copies in the meantime.

A bill being considered in New York State would put limits on the use of data from license plate cameras.

This would be a big step forward, but I fear it would be insufficient because the FBI could seize the whole database every day under the PAT RIOT act.

To make license plate cameras safe, we need a law to require that the system fail to recognize any license plates other than those specified individually by court order.

Cameras are not the only way to track cars. "Digital license plates" could track a car's movements all the time.

Of course, a "connected car" does the same thing. The "connection" works via a cellular modem, and the phone system always knows approximately where it is. Perhaps the car also has a GPS system to give it more precise tracking data.

If you own a "connected car", I suggest you disconnect it. The car's computers might record all the GPS locations for the next time it is serviced. So I suggest disconnecting the GPS too.

Can anyone determine whether putting aluminum foil around the antennas is feasible, and whether it is effective at cutting off connectivity and GPS?

Even after New Mexico passed a law that totally eliminated "civil forfeiture" (a form of punishment without trial) in the state, sleazy Albuquerque officials kept doing it, claiming the law mysteriously did not apply to them.

It turns out their salaries were paid from the funds obtained by seizing people's money, cars and houses without charging them with a crime.

Illinois supreme court: capturing your biometrics is, in itself, damage to you, and enough basis for you to sue.

US thugs arrest people 10 million times a year, and 80% of them are for minor matters, racial harassment, squeezing fines out of the poor, etc.

Elliott Abrams, associated with brutal and violent US interventions in banana republics, has been named US special envoy to Venezuela.

In effect, this threatens Venezuela with something tantamount to war.

Remember Saddam Hussein, the murderous dictator that ruled Iraq? Dubya said he invaded Iraq to give that country democracy.

I opposed that invasion, saying that invading a country to overthrow a dictator is only morally justified if (1) the people of that country want such assistance and (2) we can expect the replacement government to be better. Neither of these was true in Iraq, and that was clear in advance.

Not coincidentally, the actual result of that invasion was bloodshed that continues to this day, as well as Al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, and PISSI.

Maduro is likewise a dictator, though not as murderous as Saddam, but Venezuelans do not want an invasion, and we can hardly expect the would-be dictator of the US to give democracy to any conquered country.

Thus, I oppose his plans for Venezuela.

Venezuela: No to Intervention, No to Maduro.