‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

483 points · 267 comments · sbulaev

  1. JKCalhoun · · 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 · · 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 · · 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. Cider9986 · · focus · HN ↗
          A warrant is better than no warrant, but:

          A warrant requirement is not a reasonable bandaid to consider allowing mass surveillance. There should be no mass surveillance, only targeted surveillance.

          A warrant requirement makes sense for something like the locations of customers on cellular networks, because, although it should be improved, it's been built into the tech.

          When you make the optional choice to create mass surveillance, safeguards do not make it acceptable.

          Plenty of places have very low crime without mass surveillance.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.