The question is, why doesn't the public know about this?

The followup question is, what public records law lets FDOT decline disclosing anything about tracking?

The author's position is:

> And the state mustn’t be shielded from releasing information about what the system is, how it tracks our data, who gets access to it, and what protections we have for that information. The system is paid for by the public, and those overseeing it are elected by the public, so there is no law, excuse, or reason for the Florida government to be hiding this information.

While you are right about 'no guarantee of privacy when in a public space', one of the points is "The laws, which are nonexistent, should be very strict about who can access this data, and how it can be used." They can define what is not acceptable use of this information.

I'd add, this is not necessarily true in the future, because we have justices on both sides of the Supreme Court concerned about surveillance and privacy (most transparently Alito, Kagan, Sotomayer), and that could be a majority in future rulings. This made the news in U.S. v. Jones.

> The US government also claims the right to surveillance on private land (up to the house) as defined in Open Fields ruling of 1924.

Anyone want to link the story of the guy who was having issues with the local PD having his house thermal scanned? And then..."died"?

Where I live the "roads" are private easements, which provides adequate protections from government surveillance. Private property, with reciprocal easements, is a solution.