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

81–90 of 382 posts

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

#81

Post by Gigachad »

wil421 wrote: post #71
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?

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do. I’m 100% sold on the results.

The problem imo is the usage and laws rather than the technology. Security cameras used for public good is good. But it needs to be heavily limited to preventing crime, with strict access logs and penalties for misuse.

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

#82

Post by Gigachad »

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…

Not really because it flags an anomaly where the same plate is found in two places that are impossibly far to reach in the time span. Then police can just pull over that plate when they see it with a 50/50 chance it's the stolen car.

The more cameras in the network the faster and more likely a duplicated plate will be spotted.

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

#83

Post by assimpleaspossi »

willis936 wrote: post #4

Check your town's website for correspondence with your state's chapter of the ACLU in regards to Flock cameras. If your police chief (not an elected official) is installing them then contact your local ACLU chapter about it. These are 4th amendment violations.

Yes. Let's restrict police and take away every possible tool they can use to solve and fight crime. Not all criminals are bad criminals. They don't use Flock to spy on their ex-girlfriends but every cop in America has done it.

At least according to the internet which knows everything.

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

#85

Post by fc417fc802 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #15
qmr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. See Carpenter v US.

That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.

I feel like you haven't properly thought this through. Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't?

More generally you're confidently making wild extrapolations from the current very limited case law without regard for either its limitations or the general temperature that can be inferred from the full opinions.

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

#87

Post by assimpleaspossi »

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…

No one has the right to privacy in a public setting. That's why street photographers can roam around and take photos of anyone and publish them. Whether you can publish personally identifiable information based on that, I don't know.

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

#88

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #73
Manuel_D wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? If someone broke into your car as stole your luggage, the surveillance camera might not directly capture the thief breaking into your car. But if the camera recorded someone entering the parking garage and then exiting the garage carrying your luggage a few minutes later, that's strong evidence is it not?

You're missing the part where, for that to work, we have a government with access to a massive surveillance system capable of identifying and tracking the population at scale. And you're missing that, instead of specifically identifying a specific individual doing a specific thing, this network would be used to place under suspicion, investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being so…

> investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere."

In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd arrest the person who walked out of the lot with your stolen luggage.

> Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests

Again realize that this is legal right? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxin...

There's no right to have your public demonstrations off limits for recording. The whole point of a protest is to be seen. If someone is concerned that they will be associated with some group or cause because of their decision to protest, then they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a protest is.

> Or voting

You realize the government already has that information? Voters literally filled out ballots and delivered it to the government. They don't need a camera to know who voted, they have the ballots.

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

#89

Post by willis936 »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83
willis936 wrote: post #4

Check your town's website for correspondence with your state's chapter of the ACLU in regards to Flock cameras. If your police chief (not an elected official) is installing them then contact your local ACLU chapter about it. These are 4th amendment violations.

Yes. Let's restrict police and take away every possible tool they can use to solve and fight crime. Not all criminals are bad criminals. They don't use Flock to spy on their ex-girlfriends but every cop in America has done it. At least according to the internet which knows everything.

Don't misrepresent what others say. The 4th amendment should not be violated. I can only interpret your response as "the 4th amendment should be violated".

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

#90

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #88
etchalon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the part where, for that to work, we have a government with access to a massive surveillance system capable of identifying and tracking the population at scale. And you're missing that, instead of specifically identifying a specific individual doing a specific thing, this network would be used to place under suspicion, investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being so…

> investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd arrest the person who walked out of the lot with your stolen luggage. > Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, co…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN