Thread

1. JKCalhoun · 1791067032 · focus · HN ↗

   License plate reader?

   So the device should require very specific license plates to scan for—not the current dragnet. The software should only "ping" when there is a confident match with said license plate(s)—and merely log which license plate, time stamp a single photo, and note the confidence level of it being a match.

   The frame buffer should be the only place (a frame of) video is ever stored at all (excepting the high-confidence match indicated above).

   The only issue remaining would be whether we trust the device/software to have complied (and not have a backdoor) and of course there needs to be a legal warrant for every license plate uploaded (and it should expire fairly frequently, likely requiring a new warrant to continue canning for the plate).

   1. kennywinker · 1791070121 · focus · HN ↗

      That is a technical solution to a problem that has a far cheaper, and less easily abused solution: don't put up cameras at all.

      Building a system with "safeguards" in place that require constant oversight is destined for either regulatory capture of the oversight, or slow dismantling of the oversight.

      E.g. warrants -> fisa court warrants -> Xkeyscore

      1. JumpCrisscross · 1791071141 · focus · HN ↗

         > don't put up cameras at all

         There seems to be a real reduction in property crime in some places with cameras. I don’t think it’s realistic to take these down everywhere. (I was in the camp that they should go down everywhere. I’ve relaxed that position recently.)

         1. qmr · 1791073362 · focus · HN ↗

            Cameras are great. Especially with diverse ownership.

            Police can walk about, ask or order (warrant) for footage.

            A network of AI powered cameras linked to the hive mind controlled by real life super mega evil corp inc run by real life super villains... not so great.

            Also the 4th amendment is a thing. Mosaic theory is a thing.

            Enough of these flocking cameras.

            1. SauciestGNU · 1791073850 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't think that police should be allowed to ask camera owners to voluntarily hand over footage, even if they would be willing to. That just allows them to privatize the mechanism of surveillance, similar to using data brokers to get around warrant requirements. Instead, I think that even where camera owners would willingly hand over footage, the state should still be required to obtain a warrant for said footage in order to preserve legal safeguards around evidence collection.

               1. bradknowles · 1791074416 · focus · HN ↗

                  I’m okay with them asking private citizens. I own my own cameras, and that video lives on my own NVRs, and all of that is 100% on my own property. And I get to choose if I want to share that with them, presumably to help solve a crime that has affected one of my neighbors. But they need to come ask me and talk to me in person.

                  I’m not okay with them using the third-party doctrine and going to a company like Amazon and having them do a dragnet for them.

                  And I’m really not okay with having a company like Flock make all that information publicly available to any bozo with a friend at a law enforcement organization who wants to make a little money on the side.

                  1. kennywinker · 1791074992 · focus · HN ↗

                     > And I get to choose if I want to share that with them

                     Are you sure about that?

                     Not sure where you are what laws specifically apply, but I believe you could be compelled to hand over footage, and jailed for obstruction or destruction of evidence if you didn’t.

                     Just a thought - you may have less control than you think.

                     1. jacobolus · 1791079153 · focus · HN ↗

                        > you could be compelled to hand over footage

                        If they need to get a court order signed by a judge to recover material that is directly relevant to a legally justified criminal investigation, then there's significantly less scope for abuse than what cops are doing with the flock mass surveillance system, where some have literally written "LMAO" in the form field describing the reason for their search, and where they've been using the searches to stalk citizens who are not suspected of any crime.

                        1. kennywinker · 1791079368 · focus · HN ↗

                           Oh absolutely. Non-cloud cameras are far less prone to abuse. But to say you control the footage isn’t entirely true. For instance, if the government wanted to build a case against you for something you’ve done they didn't like…
                  2. SauciestGNU · 1791079166 · focus · HN ↗

                     This is the current status quo and has been generally reasonable in the past, but with dragnet surveillance becoming the norm I would vastly prefer that a judge review and authorize any police interest in my footage. I don't think we can trust that the state is being forthright about their reasons for wanting the footage or that the investigation for which the footage requested is legitimate, and the state has extreme latitude to lie to people in order to further its interests.

                     1. voakbasda · 1791102142 · focus · HN ↗

                        The problem is that you cannot trust the judges either. Most are former prosecutors, so they have a natural predisposition to believe all of the lies coming out of the mouths of the police. At the point, I view the government as a bonafide terrorist organization.
                  3. conception · 1791089637 · focus · HN ↗

                     There’s definitely no way a group of police officers could… encourage you to hand over your video over a period of time.
                  4. psjs · 1791098834 · focus · HN ↗

                     Do your camera’s film anything outside your property?
               2. sershe · 1791095736 · focus · HN ↗

                  Why not? If I see a crime being committed, should I be allowed to report it to police without a warrant? There's no difference with my private camera, it's even better cause the barrier for false/mistaken reporting is higher.

                  1. ndsipa_pomu · 1791112856 · focus · HN ↗

                     You shouldn't need a warrant to report a crime being committed, but you should need a warrant if you're specifically looking through a neighbour's window waiting for them to commit a crime.

                     1. sershe · 1791132775 · focus · HN ↗

                        What if I'm sitting on my porch and waiting for the crime to be committed?

                        Private doorbell cameras (and most flock cameras for that matter) point at mostly, or entirely, public space. Or in case of the former also my own property.

                        Frankly if I sit on my porch and see thru the window across that my neighbor is beating his wife, should I need a warrant to report it? That sounds ludicrous to me.

                        1. qmr · 1791140874 · focus · HN ↗

                           Exigent circumstances.
            2. sippingabonedry · 1791076304 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

               1. cucumber3732842 · 1791076633 · focus · HN ↗

                  There are a lot of evil authoritarians who are pissed that Flock is gonna rack up some bad precedents before they've had a chance to implement some 1984 type system where some guy winds up losing his house because he drove drunk for 100ft to get his car where it wouldn't be towed for street cleaning or threw a broken TV in a ditch or some other crime that's really not all that bad in the grand scheme of things but deeply offends people of a certain social class and ideological bent.

                  And there's another whole bunch of petty authoritarians who have grand plans to fine the shit out of everyone they see leaving Home Depot with a water heater and no open building permit. They're also just as pissed off this might get reigned in before they've got their chance to put the population under their jackboot.

                  1. JuniperMesos · 1791097014 · focus · HN ↗

                     Throwing a broken TV in a ditch is actually pretty bad, because it results in ditches that are full of broken TVs and other trash people throw in there once the precedent that the ditch is a de-facto trash dump is established. Driving drunk for 100 feet is also taking a risk with your car and someone else's life or property. I don't think that laws against driving drunk are bad, I don't think it's bad to harshly enforce them on people in order to make people scared of doing it, and it doesn't bother me that there's no exception for doing something that is only a little bit of driving.
               2. ToucanLoucan · 1791077655 · focus · HN ↗

                  I for one do not currently nor will ever work for a company that is actively undermining the rule of law. I of course can't speak for everyone but I assure you, I am not one iota jealous.
               3. JumpCrisscross · 1791081941 · focus · HN ↗

                  > jealousy of their success by people who wish they thought of it first

                  This is so silly. There is a well-worn arc of privacy advocacy on this forum. That’s the parsimonious explanation.

                  1. sippingabonedry · 1791085185 · focus · HN ↗

                     That arc always ends in a pot of gold.
               4. qmr · 1791084130 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm ranting on and on about the 4th amendment and right to privacy and your conclusion is I wish I didn't contribute to the surveillance state first?

                  Really!

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.