101–110 of 235 posts
I remember reading this excellent article on Bloomberg about a guy who started a company that uses Cessna's with high-quality cameras, and they fly over an area for hours, and then use that footage to rollback crimes. They filmed everything. There's a video if you can find it where the man shows footage they took of a city in Mexico, where a murder occurred, and how they were able to roll back time and see the murder…
domestically we use the RQ-4 and MQ-4 and lie about it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of Meta being able to track my every move creeps me the fuck out, sorry. What right does the government have to give my data to randos? The public that's captured is not the same as the public that accesses the data. Just imagine the creepy implications. Imagine what stalkers could do if they could follow a woman's every movement. Imagine robbers staking out houses from the comfort of their couch. The govern…
-Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion. -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house. -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectat…
I've gone through great lengths to ensure it can't, I'd rather not have the government undo all that effort.
> -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy.
Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world.
> -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house.
Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it for you and send you a nice notification.
> I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen.
I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon.
> 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…
No drone has ever followed me when I am on the way to go play hockey.
> 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.
I do not want to live in a world where random drones/cameras control my every move, and if your response to that is "I don't understand the problem" then we cannot live in the same society. It has been proven for thousands of years now that more laws do not fix society, and especially the problems we have now. Usually the laws increase in size and absurdity proportionally to how close said society is to its fall. Yet people never learn, and we just add one more line to the list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will always be those who make excuses for the panopticon. Is yours that reducing auto theft is worth the tradeoffs?
AFAIK there is no right to privacy in public, no? What I don't care so much about the data collection as I do about how it's used. Its not that the NSA surveils that bugs me. It's that they use kangaroo courts, "asdfasdfasdf" as the search reason field, that they cyber stalk girlfriends, or view camera devices to see people in state of undress (illegally and unethically). In this case we have an example of police usi…
The police are doing these things too (stalking girlfriends, viewing cameras, following people).
> In this case we have an example of police using the devices, for a very legitimate usecase, more or less in an excellent manner (save for not properly securing the footage).
The article lists several cases where they weren't being used in an "excellent manner." They deployed drones to spy on some guy listening to music on his roof, and used drones to follow two "suspicious individuals" who were just driving to a basketball court. Another instance had drones hovering around outside an apartment building's windows while police were apparently inside. The department's drone use policy says that footage should only be recorded when the drone is at the scene to minimize the exposure of people unrelated to the investigation, but the investigators found that the drones are recording constantly, from takeoff to landing, and capturing everyone and their dog in between.
And these are just the instances the investigators were able to find, on the five drones that had a public link to their footage. Footage that only dates back six months. How many more drones does SFPD have that weren't included in the archive? How many more unexcellent uses did the investigators miss because the footage expired?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't help but wonder what skin color those young men had that made the police suspicious in the first place...
[flagged]
What does your oddly aggressive reply say about you? Other than your username is at best, aspirational, and good luck with that.
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.
To balance it, the police need to be extremely accountable, but so far they get away with murder pretty easily...so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn more about it.
This is one of those areas that can be a slippery slope. Look at the UK and the terrible state it’s in. On the flip side I would hope that so long as the guardrails are in place that first response drones can be good for all parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy .
Yup I did and it was not clear. I think those two examples are worthy of a discussion on scope creep but not clear policy violations atm. The intent is to be used on active calls which I believe is a great idea. A clear violation would be the drones actively patrolling and identify suspicious behavior. That’s bad and a clear violation of the policy. Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn…
It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant.