6 ms·

I want law enforcement requests to be difficult, and impossible to automate. Imposing barriers to retrieve footage is a factor which I think helps prevent overr

by xfitm3 7y ago

I want law enforcement requests to be difficult, and impossible to automate. Imposing barriers to retrieve footage is a factor which I think helps prevent overreach. Although it's probably too late..

koolba 7y ago
I want both digital and meatspace. The requests should be done in person in a way that naturally limits it to when it would be required rather than just curiosity or convenience. But the requests themselves, the requesters, the durations, and the judges that signed off on them should be digitally available.
- inetknght 7y ago
  If the police want footage, then the police should go knocking on doors to ask for footage. And the police should expect to be told to come back with a warrant.
  - otterley 7y ago
    Why should those of us who want to efficiently investigate crime in our neighborhoods, and who want criminals caught and prosecuted quickly, restrain ourselves from cooperating with the police we pay to do just those things? It's not like they're asking us for footage of activity inside our homes.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      We shouldn't restrain ourselves. (And we don't, at least I don't). Let's cut the bullshit: if the cops are looking for someone matching your exact description or time+place with minimal doubt, you are probably not doing the "lord's work" as folks from the Southern US would say.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      Because the police are allowed to lie to you. Are they looking for a particular person, or when a blue sedan that may look like yours drove by? Who knows — you should always exercise discretion.
      - geggam 7y ago
        >Because the police are allowed to lie to you. This IMO needs to change, if they can legally lie to you they can lie in court. They do both.
        losteric 7y ago
        No, police are not allowed to lie in court... and there are limits to how far they can stretch the truth in interviews/investigations.
        geggam 7y ago
        Legally they arent allowed to lie, but they do. Anyone who has been in court has seen it. You have to have proof they are lying to get them to stop.
        otterley 7y ago
        That's true of any witness, though. Perjury is a crime, but you have to prove it. In the trial context, good defense attorneys will be able to introduce contradictory evidence, or will challenge the credibility of a witness by finding facts that make them look bad -- even police officers. With police officers it's a bit harder, though, because the public largely believes (wrongly, I'm afraid) that police are more trustworthy than the general public.
        geggam 7y ago
        Cops arent just any witness. If they are caught perjuring all the cases they testified against are eligible to be retried. I have heard this discussed in court as a reason to not find the officer guilty. Records get sealed of course and you cant discuss it. https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
    - wwweston 7y ago
      > efficiently investigate Efficiently investigating is pretty far down my list of priorities in this context. Accountably investigating, accurately investigating, and norm/right-respecting investigating are above above efficiency, though I'm glad if it can follow those. Having to contact and converse with the owner who put up the doorbell cam contributes to this. Having oversight from a judge contributes more.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Agreed. There needs to be high barriers to request this sort of data. There should be low barriers to auditing the use/misuse of it.
Gibbon1 7y ago
I agree with that. If someone has a security cam pointed at their driveway, I don't really care as long as the owner has full and complete control over it. Ring is building a global surveillance network and using dark patterns to get homeowners to pay for it.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  Can't wait until they have facial recognition on these feeds at scale so you'll never be out of view of the Amazon surveillance panopticon. Best case scenario is they just use it to relentlessly market to you... worst case is.. worse.
  - ssss11 7y ago
    Maybe we’ll all be wearing masks in public by then
    - NullPrefix 7y ago
      Face projectors. https://twitter.com/benfranklin2018/status/1180813710111264768 https://twitter.com/benfranklin2018/status/11808137101112647...
      - n0rbwah 7y ago
        Nice, scramble suits for everyone
rhizome 7y ago
Real signatures, and lots of them.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
The cameras I have around my house (outside of my Ring) are all Wyze cameras. They cost about $40 a pop and they are end-to-end encrypted if they're uploaded to the cloud. I can also just put a surveilance ready SD card in them to record from (indefinitely or specific events).

by xfitm3 7y ago

I want law enforcement requests to be difficult, and impossible to automate. Imposing barriers to retrieve footage is a factor which I think helps prevent overreach. Although it's probably too late..

koolba 7y ago

I want both digital and meatspace. The requests should be done in person in a way that naturally limits it to when it would be required rather than just curiosity or convenience. But the requests themselves, the requesters, the durations, and the judges that signed off on them should be digitally available.

inetknght 7y ago
If the police want footage, then the police should go knocking on doors to ask for footage. And the police should expect to be told to come back with a warrant.
- otterley 7y ago
  Why should those of us who want to efficiently investigate crime in our neighborhoods, and who want criminals caught and prosecuted quickly, restrain ourselves from cooperating with the police we pay to do just those things? It's not like they're asking us for footage of activity inside our homes.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    We shouldn't restrain ourselves. (And we don't, at least I don't). Let's cut the bullshit: if the cops are looking for someone matching your exact description or time+place with minimal doubt, you are probably not doing the "lord's work" as folks from the Southern US would say.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Because the police are allowed to lie to you. Are they looking for a particular person, or when a blue sedan that may look like yours drove by? Who knows — you should always exercise discretion.
    - geggam 7y ago
      >Because the police are allowed to lie to you. This IMO needs to change, if they can legally lie to you they can lie in court. They do both.
      - losteric 7y ago
        No, police are not allowed to lie in court... and there are limits to how far they can stretch the truth in interviews/investigations.
        geggam 7y ago
        Legally they arent allowed to lie, but they do. Anyone who has been in court has seen it. You have to have proof they are lying to get them to stop.
        otterley 7y ago
        That's true of any witness, though. Perjury is a crime, but you have to prove it. In the trial context, good defense attorneys will be able to introduce contradictory evidence, or will challenge the credibility of a witness by finding facts that make them look bad -- even police officers. With police officers it's a bit harder, though, because the public largely believes (wrongly, I'm afraid) that police are more trustworthy than the general public.
        geggam 7y ago
        Cops arent just any witness. If they are caught perjuring all the cases they testified against are eligible to be retried. I have heard this discussed in court as a reason to not find the officer guilty. Records get sealed of course and you cant discuss it. https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
  - wwweston 7y ago
    > efficiently investigate Efficiently investigating is pretty far down my list of priorities in this context. Accountably investigating, accurately investigating, and norm/right-respecting investigating are above above efficiency, though I'm glad if it can follow those. Having to contact and converse with the owner who put up the doorbell cam contributes to this. Having oversight from a judge contributes more.
bigiain 7y ago
Agreed. There needs to be high barriers to request this sort of data. There should be low barriers to auditing the use/misuse of it.

Gibbon1 7y ago

I agree with that. If someone has a security cam pointed at their driveway, I don't really care as long as the owner has full and complete control over it. Ring is building a global surveillance network and using dark patterns to get homeowners to pay for it.

mikeyouse 7y ago
Can't wait until they have facial recognition on these feeds at scale so you'll never be out of view of the Amazon surveillance panopticon. Best case scenario is they just use it to relentlessly market to you... worst case is.. worse.
- ssss11 7y ago
  Maybe we’ll all be wearing masks in public by then
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    Face projectors. https://twitter.com/benfranklin2018/status/1180813710111264768 https://twitter.com/benfranklin2018/status/11808137101112647...
    - n0rbwah 7y ago
      Nice, scramble suits for everyone

rhizome 7y ago

Real signatures, and lots of them.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

The cameras I have around my house (outside of my Ring) are all Wyze cameras. They cost about $40 a pop and they are end-to-end encrypted if they're uploaded to the cloud. I can also just put a surveilance ready SD card in them to record from (indefinitely or specific events).