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

Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 235 posts

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#91

Post by ceejayoz »

maxlybbert wrote: post #87
dannyw wrote: post #9

> The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. https://archive…

I don’t understand the problem. Police saw something they thought was suspicious, took a closer look, and then decided there was nothing illegal happening. I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to know when you’re being tailed. Or to be notified every time a police officer does a double-take.

Part of the problem is it leads to stuff like this:

https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-...

> The cop, Lamar Roman, wasn’t trying to pull over a suspected criminal. He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey, which he had worked a security detail shift on a few weeks prior to pulling her over. After meeting the woman, catcalling her and harassing her for her full name and Instagram details, the cop illegally looked up her vehicle information on DAVID, a Florida Department of Motor Vehicles database for law enforcement. He then put her license plate details on a surveillance “hotlist,” meaning he would get a notification in real time anytime she drove by an AI-powered license plate surveillance camera.

Or this: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/georgia-deputy-charged-with...

Or this: https://fox11online.com/news/crime/tehrangi-chapman-milwauke...

Or this: https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/07/10/pasadena...

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#92

Post by Gigachad »

buellerbueller wrote: post #58
Gigachad wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t agree. Especially in this day where anyone, or any business could run it all through AI and profile everyone to work out the exact best moment to send you a push notification for a Big Mac or whatever.

I think the value of having the data on public spaces publicly available far outweighs the risk of privately held data, or editorializaed data from public spaces. Also: You're welcome to disable push notifications if you don't want a big mac ad. (I agree that advertising is a cancer.) Also, 2: What right should the government have to capture public data and then keep it from the public?

The government is different from a person. I’m ok with cctv being recorded and stored for x days with protocols and laws that restrict who can access it and for what purposes. With audit logs and penalties for misuse.

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#93

Post by ceejayoz »

infecto wrote: post #88
nozzlegear wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Fourth Amendment.

Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Does it really matter if it’s a human tracking down a suspect or a drone. If you have any case law that shows general cameras break the 4th I would love to read.

> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only.

Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy.

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#94

Post by bratbag »

maxlybbert wrote: post #79
inigyou wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale. The possibility of surveillance was far less worrying when three police officers had to tail you, because they'd only expend that effort when they were pretty sure you'd done a crime.

This is a very common position. But I’ve never understood the argument that police should have to do some amount of busywork for things to be fair. Warrants aren’t required so the police are sportsmanlike. Warrants are required because interacting with the police can be inconvenient or hellish, depending on the interaction.

It's because ignoring rights happens faster than they can be protected.

Move fast enough with sufficent scale and you can eliminate peoples ability to protect their own rights before they even realise they are under threat.

Sometimes friction in government is necessary for individual liberty.

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#95

Post by stronglikedan »

lazide wrote: post #40
dannyw wrote: post #9

> The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. https://archive…

I mean, they evaluated and left? What should they have done, creeped on them as they played?

They didn't do anything to even be "evaluated", but you already knew that...

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#96

Post by stronglikedan »

vrganj wrote: post #70
lazide wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they evaluated and left? What should they have done, creeped on them as they played?

I can't help but wonder what skin color those young men had that made the police suspicious in the first place...

[flagged]

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#97

Post by nozzlegear »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #28
inigyou wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale. The possibility of surveillance was far less worrying when three police officers had to tail you, because they'd only expend that effort when they were pretty sure you'd done a crime.

So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? I'd rather a drone follows the car until it stops and the police arrive to retrieve it and give a hand slap to the offender. I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the ER…

> So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians?

Yes, this is preferable to me when compared to a society where police can surveil everyone, everywhere for no crime at all. I don't want to sit on my roof listening to music and wonder how many police drones are watching me, trying to figure out if I'm a "prowler." I don't want to be followed by a police drone while I'm on my way to the basketball court to shoot hoops with my friend, simply because the police thought one of us looked like a "suspicious individual."

> I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the EROI ... If the chances of catching are small, you need a big deterrent. If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent (and apply it close to the behavior to maximize the brain training of "Do bad, bad things happen")

I think you're really underestimating the public's desire to punish criminals.

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#98

Post by stavros »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #28
inigyou wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale. The possibility of surveillance was far less worrying when three police officers had to tail you, because they'd only expend that effort when they were pretty sure you'd done a crime.

So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? I'd rather a drone follows the car until it stops and the police arrive to retrieve it and give a hand slap to the offender. I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the ER…

I agree with you 100% if the number of average drone surveillance incidents per year stays the same as the average number of high speed chases per year that took place before drones.

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#99

Post by rationalist »

vrganj wrote: post #70
lazide wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they evaluated and left? What should they have done, creeped on them as they played?

I can't help but wonder what skin color those young men had that made the police suspicious in the first place...

[flagged]

Re: Leak of San Francisco Police Drone Footage Exposes Reality of Urban Surveillance

#100

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #82
cebert wrote: post #8

With mass drone surveillance and online safety acts, we will finally be able to keep our children truly safe for the small cost of privacy.

[flagged]

"We're bringing the paranoid old biddy HOA worldview to everyone, non-consensually!" is your upside?
Post reply on HN