The idea behind Defrock is fascinating and reflects a real pushback against the invasive surveillance that’s quietly becoming normalized in urban areas. License plate readers are one of those tools that many people don’t think twice about but which, in aggregate, create a detailed record of people’s lives without their consent.

It’s not hard to see how this level of tracking could easily be abused, especially when data gets sold, shared, or hacked. It seems like Defrock’s mapping efforts aim to strike a balance by informing people where they’re being monitored. Informed consent is a baseline for privacy, so if we can’t avoid the cameras, knowing their locations at least gives people some agency.

As for the legality, you’re right that a Supreme Court challenge could be a dead end. There’s a strong precedent of backing law enforcement tools, often under the guise of “public safety.” But if Defrock’s map lets people avoid certain areas to preserve their privacy, or if these cameras can be blocked from sightlines in non-destructive ways, that could be an empowering workaround.

The question I think we should ask is: At what point do citizens have the right to reclaim privacy in public spaces? Defrock may just be part of a much larger conversation."**