Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#41

Post by Manuel_D »

caconym_ wrote: post #40
Manuel_D wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded…

> No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. This is false. While there is no strongly established precedent yet, there are certainly serious and plausible legal arguments being made that unlimited collection and collation/cross-referencing/etc. of "public" information can under certain…

The legality of automated license plate readers has gone all the way up to the United States Court of Appeals. That's the second highest court in the country, superseded only by the Supreme Court.

This is as strong as precedent gets, short of a SCOTUS decision.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#43

Post by Avshalom »

Manuel_D wrote: post #22
Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real. My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

In Seattle at least, the majority of homicide cases are solved with the assistance of surveillance cameras (though what % of said cameras are specifically Flock, I'm not sure): https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2026/03/05/new-analysis-rtcc-...

That's not what that says though.

>technology and professional analysts with helping detectives make arrests in 53%

"technology and analysts" "help" "make arrests" not surveillance, not convictions and only the implication that they wouldn't have made the arrest otherwise.

Like look at the example: somebody calls in an OD and a guy sees that the dude ODing matches (the clothing of) a suspect in some other crime and so they arrest him.

Once again an arrest is not a conviction but also what part of that needed/used pervasive surveillance?

ALSO a conviction is not the same thing as truth.

ALSO ALSO by basic subtraction the panopticon wasn't even helpful 47% of the time.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#44

Post by Avshalom »

rolph wrote: post #35
Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real. My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

guess what prolific career criminals do with crime cars? they look for a car that is very similar if not exact make and model of thier stolen vehicle, then they "clone" the victims license plate with a sheet of embossment copper and a stylus, apply paint at thier shop and affix the imposter to the crime vehicle. that buggers the whole LPR thing. they can replicate dozens of plates in a day and offer the service for c…

That seems like a lot of effort when you can just take the license plate off and if you're really worried print off a convincing temporary license and tape in the back window.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#46

Post by chmod775 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #33
asveikau wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops can politely ask owners of private cameras for access for things like murder investigation. If the polite answer is no (most people will say yes), they can go to court for a subpoena. This has happened for a long time. This is how it should work. If the cops are too lazy or chicken to ask a judge while investigating a murder, they don't deserve the footage.

Right and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business. The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a proposal?

What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms?

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#47

Post by Manuel_D »

gigel82 wrote: post #39

Can I set up my own camera on the side of the road (in a public place) to scan people's faces and license plates, link them up to one of the many data brokers (or leaks) and use a big display to show the drivers' pictures and something like "Hey Rick Larsen, it's the 24th time we've seen you this week. We'll let our clients know there's no one home at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Everett most weekdays between 8 and 4!", and…

Yes, you are allowed to set up a camera, as long as you own the land you're putting the camera on or you have permission from the landowner.

Again, I'm surprised by how many people don't realize that it's legal to film people in public.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#48

Post by caconym_ »

Manuel_D wrote: post #41
caconym_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. This is false. While there is no strongly established precedent yet, there are certainly serious and plausible legal arguments being made that unlimited collection and collation/cross-referencing/etc. of "public" information can under certain…

The legality of automated license plate readers has gone all the way up to the United States Court of Appeals. That's the second highest court in the country, superseded only by the Supreme Court. This is as strong as precedent gets, short of a SCOTUS decision.

That doesn't sound like escaping scrutiny to me! Sounds like it's getting pretty thoroughly scrutinized, in fact.

> This is as stromg (sic) as precedent gets, short of a SCOTUS decision.

Another egregious misrepresentation. The courts are obviously making their rulings as narrow as possible because they know the "mosaic theory" style arguments have some merit. Look at US vs. Yang, for example, in which the court dodged the issue completely with some argument about rental car contract periods. And Schmidt v. Norfolk, which IIUC directly challenges Flock ALPRs on 4A grounds, is pending.

Lots and lots of scrutiny. Your claim that the conclusion is foregone here is obviously absurd. Even when/if it gets to SCOTUS I expect they'll write as narrow an opinion as they can get away with, in whatever direction it falls.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#49

Post by rolph »

Avshalom wrote: post #44
rolph wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guess what prolific career criminals do with crime cars? they look for a car that is very similar if not exact make and model of thier stolen vehicle, then they "clone" the victims license plate with a sheet of embossment copper and a stylus, apply paint at thier shop and affix the imposter to the crime vehicle. that buggers the whole LPR thing. they can replicate dozens of plates in a day and offer the service for c…

That seems like a lot of effort when you can just take the license plate off and if you're really worried print off a convincing temporary license and tape in the back window.

its effort well worth it, and really is not a lot of effort. if you stole the plate, the theft is evident, when there are duplicates then it becomes difficult to know which one to suspect, and that also presupposes knowledge of the duplication.

you would have to realize, it is not feasible for a car to be in location 1 thenbe in location 2 many miles away in a few minutes.

the odd thing about criminals is thier effort to perpetuate crime is often far greater than getting a job, but is somehow the preferable option.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#50

Post by Manuel_D »

chmod775 wrote: post #46
Manuel_D wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business. The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a proposal?

What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms?

The hopefully we'll be able to at least narrow down the list of suspects to the people who entered the bathroom around the time they the murder took place.

Surveillance often doesn't directly capture crime on camera, but is rather used to identify who traveled to and from the crime scene around the time of the incident

Post reply on HN