As far as I understand it, the alternatives do not include a nationwide search as part of their features. Flock is actually especially bad on that front.
That said, I think most of the emotional revulsion against Flock is just the idea of persistent tracking of everyone by your local police force, and that isn’t mitigated by a brand switch.
Given the Snowden leaks, it seems inevitable that if that data is being recorded and collected into the servers of a small number of US companies, that it will end up being used to enable nationwide searches regardless
the alternatives do not include a nationwide search as part of their features
Yeah I think people would feel much better if the cameras were operated by the local police department, and they were the only ones that had access to it.
ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) cameras have been around for a long time, but it previously wasn’t an issue because access to the data was restricted. Same with security CCTV cameras. Other jurisdictions had to subpoena the data rather than being able to instantly access everything.
Flock’s cameras are much more than ALPR though. They make a profile of every car they see, and can track cars even if they don’t have license plates based on identifying features (dents, big scratches, bumper stickers, etc).
The local police should also need to go to court to access their own cameras. The 4th amendment protects against police surveiling people without a warrant.
I’m pretty sure part of why this is all being done is because the police can’t legally do this. A third party company can though, and police can purchase access (in their theory at least, though this is being tested).
Maybe police shouldn’t be allowed to pay a third party to do something they themselves aren’t allowed to do. Just a thought.
Absolutely. It’s stupid that they maybe possibly can. It’s being tested in the courts. They definitely are allowed to abuse it to some extent, but maybe not like they are with these cameras. It doesn’t make any sense either way though.
The way phone data works, they have to get a warrant. They aren’t legally allowed to obtain it from phone companies until they have one, even if the company is more than happy to provide it. How this doesn’t automatically apply in the same way to these cameras is crazy.
I agree. I don’t like that a private company is involved, at all. Companies should just supply the hardware, and not have full access to the system.
Yeah, need to find a way to go after the government to stop using the tech rather than going after a single company. Eventually, Flock will just go bankrupt, the pieces will get bought up and either sold to a competitor or the VC that buys them will change the name and start a new company that’s basically the same and the executives from Flock will join that or go to competitors. There’s not much use attacking a single company these days. But it is good that attention is being brought to the technology in use and how the government is using it.
It is very revealing how the people rebelling against Flock isn’t seen as the people opposing mass surveillance and data being made available to all the cops without cause, due process, oversight, restrictions or consequences for abuse, but instead as the people being against Flock specifically and the same system with a different label would be peachy.
Either they are monumentally stupid or more likely they are corrupt as hell and/or evil.
Remember, your tax dollars are being wasted on this while you’re not able to afford a house.