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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.