361–370 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the part that upsets me. They really could help solve crimes without sacrificing privacy.
How? Whatever the system is now is clearly not preserving privacy
The police should show that a crime has likely been committed, and get access to just the data that probably has evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they respond by refusing to work. That's a ~~problem~~ solution that, at this time, has no ~~solution~~ problem. If a police department reuses to accept accountability, and dig in their heels by refusing to work, "just" dissolve it. And while at it, half the calls could be handled by folks without guns. In practice that obviously would not go over well, people are too attached to the status quo. We just lack the po…
> half the calls could be handled by folks without guns This can't be emphasized enough. A lot of enforcement and "civil order" work does not require guns, and in many cases (e.g., mental health crises), they're the wrong people to be engaged to resolve. I think one of the biggest issues with policing is that they are supported by the "law and order" crowd, which is a euphemism for keeping "others" in their place. I…
[flagged]
Doesn't he show up regardless
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other countries, cops may carry guns, but if those guns are ever fired, there is an investigation to ensure it was fired for a very good reason. Those places still have cops. They also have months or years of cop training, not weeks.
They also teach the cops the law and ensure they're morally sound instead of unofficially endorsing breaking the law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My thing with this story is that no part of it has anything to do with him being a county commissioner; it's just added to the narrative because it makes it sound like he should have been authorized to do this.
I share the same thing. In fact, being a commissioner he was probably explicitly warned against taking any action into his own hands. A commissioner can easily mess things up and get sued trying do work on their own. Say they try to “repair a playground” by replacing a missing bolt. Well, were they qualified to do that? Do they have insurance? Was the action approved by a properly filed motion? Etc etc etc I learned…
Publicity for what?
The publicity comes from a elected government official getting charged with felonys for stealing when he didn't steal anything.
The playground analogy doesn't really hold up here I don't see the connection between the two.
The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is all very silly. Flock is not a scheme to install forever-cameras. They get paid primarily by municipalities. If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. If it votes to take the cameras down, nobody is going to stop public works from doing that. The problem is that the First Law Of Message Board dictates that the most interesting narrative wins, and the narrative where Flock has…
> If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. That's simply not true: there are numerous instances of municipalities having to fight flock to get cameras removed or shut off, and instances where local governments pass ordinances that local law enforcement refuses to enforce because the cameras, which have been banned, are not off, as you allege is what happens, and law enforcement cont…
I'm deeply involved in municipal politics and was for many years involved in national politics (and, more to the point, discussions of national politics online) and I see this all the time: people crossing the streams between the two, as if the levels of responsibility and accountability were comparable. A municipal sworn law enforcement official that ignores a duly passed ordinance that has gone into effect is breaking the law and their contract and can trivially be fired, not after a long drawn-out procedure but immediately.
I watched us shut our cameras down. As I said: there was no drama, at least procedurally. If our chief had tried to prevent the cameras from coming down, she'd have been out on her ass the next day. I'm sure there are places where there was drama, but I'd need to see the full story before drawing the conclusion that you're drawing. What I see here is the more interesting narrative ("the cameras are impossible to take down, they're a virus!") asserting itself in its natural habitat, the online message board.
I don't know what this story about a misconfigured camera (it strobed an "outage" alert after being deactivated) being reactivated by a technician is supposed to tell me. The theory here is that Flock is running a scam where they're rolling trucks to surreptitiously enable individual cameras?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could the government set up 80,000 cameras to spy on everyone? No, they are not aloud to create dragnets or conduct mass surveillance. They need warrants. Thats the loophole that flock capitalized on.
How many highways and bridges charge tolls via license plate reading cameras? A lot, it's legal, and I would be surprised if that data was used only for processing tolls.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20645486-re_-externa...
HB 4006 nullifies the entire purpose of obtaining Tollway information in an active investigation by requiring promptnotification to the subject of a search warrant and potential criminal actor. This information can be incredibly usefulin a multitude of criminal investigations, including homicides, kidnappings, and interstate trafficking of contraband.With this provision, law enforcement would not proceed with seeking a search warrant if it could jeopardize the abilityto apprehend the suspect, result in the destruction of evidence, or even worse result in harm to a victim.
Additionally, the proposed bill forecloses the possibility of obtaining information about a person traveling through aTollway pursuant to a subpoena, including license plate information or photographs of the driver, where a knownsuspect may not be identified but the route of travel could be useful to generate leads. A warrant is not required toobtain this information. Placing such a requirement that creates greater protections beyond those required under theFourth Amendment creates an unnecessary limitation on law enforcement's ability to investigate crime. The currentrequirement to obtain a subpoena is sufficient to ensure that law enforcement has a documented investigative purposeand criminal predicate tied to Tollway information.
Some case law background explaining why a warrant is not required for this type of Tollway information:
"This court has not previously addressed in a published opinion the question of whether an individual has areasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate. In two unpublished decisions, however, this court has agreedwith the other circuits that have decided this issue by holding that no such privacy interest exists. The reasoning ofthese opinions, as well as that of the Supreme Court in related cases, leads us to agree that a motorist has noreasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment.No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purposeof a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to lawenforcement officials and others."Earlier quoted context omitted.
Said by someone who's clearly never tangled with civil enforcement. Nearly your rights go out the window when it's non-criminal prosecution. The organizations also aren't nearly as robustly structured to limit damage by "bad apples" as real police departments are. I know this sounds insane in light of how bad the cops are. That's because it is. Civil enforcement is essentially 50yr behind policing when it comes to tr…
how many times does civil enforcement shoot people in a year though? do they have the power to assault you and then have it be your fault?