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. 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.