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. mmooss · 1791087125 · focus · HN ↗

            While I would take down the cameras, I don't think the public will be sold on it. They do see security benefits. And wait until some legitimately horrible crime happens and someone says, 'if we had the cameras, we would have caught the criminal'.

            Also, there are too many other cameras for a Flock ban to be consequential: privately owned cameras, law enforcement and other drones, etc.

            The solution is good data hygiene (minimization, encryption, etc.) and a warrant requirement. Also, any cameras recording public space should be required to obscure, at the point of capture (before storage or transmission) all identifiable information - people (full body), cars, their dogs, etc.

            1. JKCalhoun · 1791115441 · focus · HN ↗

               "They do see security benefits."

               Or feel them.

               I would be convinced if, nightly, we saw on the news how video from a Flock camera was critical in apprehending the criminals involved in a car-jacking. Or anything.

               But I've not seen that at all.

               1. mmooss · 1791132712 · focus · HN ↗

                  > I would be convinced if, nightly, we saw on the news how video from a Flock camera was critical in apprehending the criminals involved in a car-jacking. Or anything.

                  Interesting! What I read is that police are losing the skill of solving crimes without cameras and other digital information. Cameras identify suspects; tracking cars through a city - to or from the crime - is often how law enforcement finds them. (Any cameras, not just Flock.)

                  Regardless of our varied experiences, I'm sure we agree that perception and not reality will guide public opinion. I think camera advoctes - including law enforcement - have easy emotional buttons to press. The disparagement of human rights generally greatly weakens the strongest argument against them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.