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

WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

winonapost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#21

Post by estearum »

lokar wrote: post #15
estearum wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not. So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess. But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing…

I’m not sure people think that way, or even understand the details. But they see lots of stories about police officers misusing the system.

I think people understand "rich tech CEO putting cameras everywhere offers no assurances of people's privacy and legal rights, instead opts to call them terrorists" perfectly well

The fundamental issue is that Flock doesn't care about people's privacy or rights. That washes out in a variety of ways including CEOs' statements, product-level security controls (thus creating the horror stories), and lack of legal commitments to protections.

I would personally be in favor of a fairly widespread camera network that had significant legal protections built in. Flock has demonstrated – in every possible way – they cannot possibly be the providers of such a system.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#22

Post by Arainach »

pj_mukh wrote: post #18
colechristensen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it". So I get it…

Issuing tickets doesn't require retaining any data on vehicles you aren't ticketing, you're conflating issues.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#23

Post by pj_mukh »

Arainach wrote: post #22
pj_mukh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it". So I get it…

Issuing tickets doesn't require retaining any data on vehicles you aren't ticketing, you're conflating issues.

I'm not. There are two issues in my comment.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#24

Post by Tanoc »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

There are plenty of exceptions police can get to bypass warrant requirements. Think for example of stingers and other cell spoofing systems or the license plate readers they have on the front of their cruisers. Even if they do have to get a warrant judges are far more likely to simply grant any warrant request if it has to do with digital surveillance. Carpenter v. United States and Chatrie v. United States have outlined this behaviour, and in the wake of their rulings created the bias towards what are basically automatically approved warrants for such data.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#25

Post by everdrive »

lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

>They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock

I really distrust flock in and of itself.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#28

Post by veec_cas_tant »

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#29

Post by michaelt »

pj_mukh wrote: post #18
colechristensen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it". So I get it…

> I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them

With flock, citizens are concerned by the privacy implications of the state keeping a dossier of each citizen’s movements.

But once we assure citizens the flock cameras have already issued 500,000 speeding fines in a single town this year, no doubt they’ll come to support the cameras.

Perhaps the cameras could also automatically issue parking fines, to garner even more popular support!

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#30

Post by steviehicks78 »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

I would totally agree with you if I trusted the government
Post reply on HN