12 ms·

New Report Shows Cops Used Ring Cameras to Monitor Black Lives Matter Protests

172 points by DiabloD3 6y ago

cwhiz 6y ago
>LAPD should tell the public how many hours of surveillance footage it gathered around these protests, and why. Gee I wonder why. Maybe to find all the people who were burning down buildings, looting, destroying property, throwing rocks and other projectiles, and stealing?
- bitwize 6y ago
  Chaos is only a problem when the right causes it. The chaos under discussion was born of justifiable anger and should be supported by morally conscious citizens. /s
  - Fogest 6y ago
    While you're being downvoted, you're also not wrong. I have seen lots of people across reddit in large subreddits who are highly upvoted saying exactly this and not in a sarcastic manner. You also see it throughout Twitter. There are many people who actively think it is okay for these protests to be violent and destructive because of what they are fighting for. But then these same people will ostracized people on the right who have wild protests. It's like either violence and destruction is wrong when you're fighting for what you believe in, or it is right. People do often feels like breaking the law is okay when it is for their movement, but when it is for a movement they don't personally agree with it suddenly is not okay. But this is exactly why protests, especially larger scale ones need to be monitored. We have seen protests in many areas in America where destructive mobs start to descend on neighbourhoods at night to "protest". They will use things that make nose such as horns and cowbells and go through these neighbourhoods at night and cause a lot of conflict with the people in the neighborhoods. I can completely understand why police are getting this footage, because oftentimes a lot of petty crimes gets reported along the path a "protest" took place. You can find plenty of examples of these protests through neighbourhoods where someone has a Trump sign or American flag. Often those properties got some kind of vandalism or at the very least a mob chanting outside their house. While it may seem controversial what the police are doing, it seems completely reasonable to request camera footage from people as some of the people in the protest committed crimes at some point during the day and that footage could be used to help identify them. Protesting is one thing, but someone committing a crime should still face the consequences regardless of what they are fighting for. Unfortunately if the police were requesting footage from protests that happened from Trump supporters I doubt we would see any news articles about it.
    - TheRealSteel 6y ago
      >someone committing a crime should still face the consequences regardless of what they are fighting for. This was literally the entire point of the protests. Way to miss the point.
      - Fogest 6y ago
        The point of the protest is that they should be allowed to create destruction and violence and not have the police monitor them when they do that? You're not making a point here you're just dismissing me because I don't hold a view in support of protests that turn destructive.
        dang 6y ago
        Please do not post ideological flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - dang 6y ago
        Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately. It's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - furr 6y ago
      > if the police were requesting footage from protests that happened from Trump supporters I doubt we would see any news articles about it Police (and the FBI) requested footage of the Trump supporters' protest at the Capitol that left one police officer dead. There were LOTS of news articles about it.
      - Fogest 6y ago
        I mean that's a bit of a silly comparison is it not? You're comparing a capital being stormed to a protest through a neighbourhood that I am referring to. Please don't use strawman arguments like that.
- TheRealSteel 6y ago
  To see people protesting the consistent and systemic murder of citizens of a particular race and the constant turning of a blind eye towards it by citizens and the system, and then to deliberately turn a blind eye towards it, proves precisely our point. Well done. YOU'RE the reason the protests needed to happen. YOU are the reason we have to march in the streets. Cops murder black people and get away with it. People have said we've had enough, we're protesting this. And out of those two things the only part you have a problem with is the people standing up to the murders? The only part you pick out to get mad at is the protests? Congratulations. You're the problem.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    You provide a good counterpoint to an extremely common narrative on hackernews, thank you. One simple point that shows the point being argued is too simplistic, is that most of the looting was done at night or at least after dark, most footage of protests was broad daylight. Police beating up journalists and protestors is just masturbation and has nothing to do with their ability or failure to apprehend looters.
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    He didn't say the protests were wrong. He talked about policemen doing their jobs and tracking down the crime. I would think that peaceful protesters would support this, as the criminals ended up tarring all protesters with the same brush and de-legitimizing the point the protests were trying to make. And no, I don't think that someone who is mad about crime is the reason that the protests happened. As I recall, it was because a policeman murdered a black, not because someone said that criminals should be found and arrested. An original objective was to ensure that Chauvin et al. faced justice for their crimes, so punishing those who commit other crimes seems consistent with the principles behind the protests. It is ridiculous to characterize criminals as "the people standing up to the murders". Cwhiz clearly stated that his problem was with the crinimals, not the protesters. You have gone past an uncharitable reading to responding to points he simply did not make.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    I thought that after 1/6, the consensus shifted to be that "burning down buildings, looting, destroying property, throwing rocks and other projectiles, and stealing" are again _not_ acceptable forms of protest?
nostromo 6y ago
Public demonstrations are by definition public. They are designed to be highly visible. Who cares if you're caught on camera demonstrating in the public square? That's kind of the point: to be seen by as many people as possible.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Police surveillance of constitutionally protected activities have a chilling effect that might prevent people from exercising their rights and can therefore be illegal.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Police regularly monitor protests, and frequently use footage from security cameras in investigating and prosecuting crimes. I'm not seeing a problem here on those grounds.
    - kbar13 6y ago
      I see a couple gray areas: 1) when people buy a doorbell cam they may not expect it to be used by the police in unrelated investigation (not a crime actively committed against the owner of the camera) 2) motive for investigation of a crime like theft is clear-cut, investigation of who was at a protest is not as clear (why do we need to identify who participated in a protest? there shouldn't need to be identification unless there's an actual crime committed)
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        1) The article is unclear what is meant by "request", but the impression is that the police are merely asking private citizens for access to video which they are under no obligation to provide. If that is the case, then I see nothing wrong here. 2) Agreed, however it is not unreasonable to expect to be identified when taking part in a public activity. You could just as easily be identified by police who were there, or via someone's phone footage uploaded to youtube. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Further, I see no reason to expect that the LAPD intends to do anything other than investigate criminal actions with this footage [0]. [0] Although the history of the LAPD would suggest they might use it for harassment.
bhauer 6y ago
I am a self-hosted partisan, so I obviously avoid Ring. But this article feels disingenuous in implying that there is something uniquely nefarious about Ring here, aside from perhaps the relative ease by which the authorities are able to request video. The police also can and do ask those who run self-hosted surveillance systems for video of events; I know because I've been asked before for video from mine. So, yes, it's very easy to request video from Ring users. But they still do need to ask. The only way I am going to be genuinely upset about this is if they are able to get video without asking the individual owners.
- conception 6y ago
  Owners have to op into "Neighborhood Watch" for their neighborhoods but they are opting into package thieves, not protest monitoring. And it's all or nothing, not a per video request. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel... By tapping into “a perceived need for more self-surveillance and by playing on consumer fears about crime and security,” he added, Ring has found “a clever workaround for the development of a wholly new surveillance network, without the kind of scrutiny that would happen if it was coming from the police or government.”
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    So the request here is that Amazon makes it more possible to be more specific about what use you allow for the cameras and give users flexibility to not be all-or-nothing. Seems reasonable.
  - kodah 6y ago
    When someone says, "perceived" I usually receive that as, "someone thinks they need this but they don't" Just some hasty research: https://www.crresearch.com/blog/2019-package-theft-statistics-report https://www.crresearch.com/blog/2019-package-theft-statistic... https://www.security.org/resources/stolen-packages-survey/ https://www.security.org/resources/stolen-packages-survey/ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/10/package-theft-how-amazon-google-others-are-fighting-porch-pirates.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/10/package-theft-how-amazon... > With one single package potentially containing hundreds of dollars worth of goods, package thieves, or “porch pirates,” see an Amazon box as a ripe opportunity to steal. More than one-third (36%) have been a victim of package theft. Of those, 44% have had a package stolen at least twice. Most package theft victims (83%) said they contacted the seller or Amazon immediately after finding out their package had been stolen, while only 13% called the police right away. Overall, very few (11%) said the porch pirate was caught, but thankfully, 73% of package theft victims said they eventually received a refund. This seems to substantiate that package theft is at the very least a common problem for the people they polled. Whether Ring engineered a national surveillance network on purpose sounds like something that needs to be proven. Just talking about outcomes without examining what (legitimate) problem they're trying to solve does not help inform the public. The way I end up reading the situation is that some people want to aid the police to find package thieves but they don't want to aid police in finding people suspected of crimes during protests. Personally, I'll take this debate a step further: I don't think it should be legal to film anyone without their consent because that practice will always be abused by bad actors. Whether you're antagonizing people by recording them in public or you're surveiling a protest. My idea would be to craft laws saying you can't capture any video for anything off of your property. You could also encourage users to relocate their cameras to positions that only capture the front door vicinity.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Why is this a problem? If customers are sharing footage either voluntarily or in response to a legal request driven by a court order, then I don't think anything wrong is happening. Filming public spaces is totally legal. And those acting illegally outside the bounds of what is allowed under the right to assembly should be brought to justice. There's nothing wrong with that. It's unclear to me why the EFF is even picking this fight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
option 6y ago
nothing wrong if police asks user’s permission to view the video.
7174n6 6y ago
I hate to see this. There are so many legitimate causes for the EFF to fight for and they choose this? The police trying to identify people who turned a legitimate protest into riots filled with looting and criminal mischief? It seems to me the police are just trying to identify the bad actors, nothing more. I support the EFF but this effort is misguided and the article is disingenuous.
- basilgohar 6y ago
  The government getting around regulations of state surveillance by using private equipment owned by individuals but likely without their knowledge in partnership with large corporations to monitor the public sounds like exactly the kind of thing I want the EFF to use my donations to fight so that it does not become more pervasive. The fact that today it was used for something you do not object today is just temporary. The EFF looks down the path to what this means for the future and fights to prevent that.
- elil17 6y ago
  > It seems to me the police are just trying to identify bad actors My concern is that the expanded subpoena powers of the police allow for excessive amounts of parallel construction. Say (hypothetically - this obviously isn't what is happening here) a cop wants hit someone with as many traffic violations as possible because of a personal grudge. If they found an unrelated crime near an area where the person typically drives, they could then subpoena all the Ring videos from that area and use them to go after the person they were originally interested in. The problem is that when you grant police power in one case, they get to keep that power and use it whenever they want.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Society is better off when police show probable cause before getting data of private citizens. In the article, EFF highlights two cases where police made unspecific requests for data of large swaths of people. Such requests have a chilling effect on our society. I think this is exactly what EFF should be doing. It's why I support them.
  - 6y ago
pessimizer 6y ago
It's terrible that the police are getting access to a bunch of cameras pointed at the street, but not very notable that they're using the tools we're giving them to do the job we're telling them to do.
- elil17 6y ago
  > EFF and ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco on behalf of three protesters, asking the court to require the city to follow its Surveillance Technology Ordinance and prohibit the SFPD from acquiring, borrowing, or using non-city networks of surveillance cameras absent prior approval from the city’s Board of Supervisors. It seems like they're actually ignoring laws which are supposed to put checks and balances on their ability to acquire surveillance data.
whiddershins 6y ago
I hate the panopticon. I sympathize with police wanting to identify bad actors within protests, as they really can terrorize an entire neighborhood and often undermine whatever just cause was being fought for. I also think the road to the surveillance state will always be paved with ‘good reasons.’ I think criminals need to be held accountable. I think endless footage of protestors could be used to at some point retaliate against people who are peacefully protesting. This has already happened to people who peacefully attended Trump Rallies, I see no reason why it couldn’t just as easily be used to discriminate against BLM organizers if that movement ever falls out of favor. So I am conflicted. Mostly I am still sad we’ve had so much violence in our protests over the 8 months or so.
dave_aiello 6y ago
After reading this article and the comments here on HN, I wonder if anyone else has thought about the presence of Smarthome devices that are compatible with [HomeKit Secure Video], how the police agencies would have pursued video from those cameras, and if they would have made the additional effort to request that video in the first place? [HomeKit Secure Video]: https://www.the-ambient.com/guides/apple-homekit-secure-video-explainer-1814 https://www.the-ambient.com/guides/apple-homekit-secure-vide...
thraway12 6y ago
Is there a Discord that routinely discusses issues like this?
known 6y ago
And in India, Disha Ravi, 21, is facing sedition charges, accused of sharing a Google Doc about the farmers protest with Greta Thunberg https://archive.is/B1L8i https://archive.is/B1L8i

172 points by DiabloD3 6y ago

>LAPD should tell the public how many hours of surveillance footage it gathered around these protests, and why. Gee I wonder why. Maybe to find all the people who were burning down buildings, looting, destroying property, throwing rocks and other projectiles, and stealing?

bitwize 6y ago
Chaos is only a problem when the right causes it. The chaos under discussion was born of justifiable anger and should be supported by morally conscious citizens. /s
- Fogest 6y ago
  While you're being downvoted, you're also not wrong. I have seen lots of people across reddit in large subreddits who are highly upvoted saying exactly this and not in a sarcastic manner. You also see it throughout Twitter. There are many people who actively think it is okay for these protests to be violent and destructive because of what they are fighting for. But then these same people will ostracized people on the right who have wild protests. It's like either violence and destruction is wrong when you're fighting for what you believe in, or it is right. People do often feels like breaking the law is okay when it is for their movement, but when it is for a movement they don't personally agree with it suddenly is not okay. But this is exactly why protests, especially larger scale ones need to be monitored. We have seen protests in many areas in America where destructive mobs start to descend on neighbourhoods at night to "protest". They will use things that make nose such as horns and cowbells and go through these neighbourhoods at night and cause a lot of conflict with the people in the neighborhoods. I can completely understand why police are getting this footage, because oftentimes a lot of petty crimes gets reported along the path a "protest" took place. You can find plenty of examples of these protests through neighbourhoods where someone has a Trump sign or American flag. Often those properties got some kind of vandalism or at the very least a mob chanting outside their house. While it may seem controversial what the police are doing, it seems completely reasonable to request camera footage from people as some of the people in the protest committed crimes at some point during the day and that footage could be used to help identify them. Protesting is one thing, but someone committing a crime should still face the consequences regardless of what they are fighting for. Unfortunately if the police were requesting footage from protests that happened from Trump supporters I doubt we would see any news articles about it.
  - TheRealSteel 6y ago
    >someone committing a crime should still face the consequences regardless of what they are fighting for. This was literally the entire point of the protests. Way to miss the point.
    - Fogest 6y ago
      The point of the protest is that they should be allowed to create destruction and violence and not have the police monitor them when they do that? You're not making a point here you're just dismissing me because I don't hold a view in support of protests that turn destructive.
      - dang 6y ago
        Please do not post ideological flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 6y ago
      Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately. It's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - furr 6y ago
    > if the police were requesting footage from protests that happened from Trump supporters I doubt we would see any news articles about it Police (and the FBI) requested footage of the Trump supporters' protest at the Capitol that left one police officer dead. There were LOTS of news articles about it.
    - Fogest 6y ago
      I mean that's a bit of a silly comparison is it not? You're comparing a capital being stormed to a protest through a neighbourhood that I am referring to. Please don't use strawman arguments like that.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
To see people protesting the consistent and systemic murder of citizens of a particular race and the constant turning of a blind eye towards it by citizens and the system, and then to deliberately turn a blind eye towards it, proves precisely our point. Well done. YOU'RE the reason the protests needed to happen. YOU are the reason we have to march in the streets. Cops murder black people and get away with it. People have said we've had enough, we're protesting this. And out of those two things the only part you have a problem with is the people standing up to the murders? The only part you pick out to get mad at is the protests? Congratulations. You're the problem.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  You provide a good counterpoint to an extremely common narrative on hackernews, thank you. One simple point that shows the point being argued is too simplistic, is that most of the looting was done at night or at least after dark, most footage of protests was broad daylight. Police beating up journalists and protestors is just masturbation and has nothing to do with their ability or failure to apprehend looters.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  He didn't say the protests were wrong. He talked about policemen doing their jobs and tracking down the crime. I would think that peaceful protesters would support this, as the criminals ended up tarring all protesters with the same brush and de-legitimizing the point the protests were trying to make. And no, I don't think that someone who is mad about crime is the reason that the protests happened. As I recall, it was because a policeman murdered a black, not because someone said that criminals should be found and arrested. An original objective was to ensure that Chauvin et al. faced justice for their crimes, so punishing those who commit other crimes seems consistent with the principles behind the protests. It is ridiculous to characterize criminals as "the people standing up to the murders". Cwhiz clearly stated that his problem was with the crinimals, not the protesters. You have gone past an uncharitable reading to responding to points he simply did not make.
- eplanit 6y ago
  I thought that after 1/6, the consensus shifted to be that "burning down buildings, looting, destroying property, throwing rocks and other projectiles, and stealing" are again _not_ acceptable forms of protest?

nostromo 6y ago

Public demonstrations are by definition public. They are designed to be highly visible. Who cares if you're caught on camera demonstrating in the public square? That's kind of the point: to be seen by as many people as possible.

stefan_ 6y ago
Police surveillance of constitutionally protected activities have a chilling effect that might prevent people from exercising their rights and can therefore be illegal.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Police regularly monitor protests, and frequently use footage from security cameras in investigating and prosecuting crimes. I'm not seeing a problem here on those grounds.
  - kbar13 6y ago
    I see a couple gray areas: 1) when people buy a doorbell cam they may not expect it to be used by the police in unrelated investigation (not a crime actively committed against the owner of the camera) 2) motive for investigation of a crime like theft is clear-cut, investigation of who was at a protest is not as clear (why do we need to identify who participated in a protest? there shouldn't need to be identification unless there's an actual crime committed)
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      1) The article is unclear what is meant by "request", but the impression is that the police are merely asking private citizens for access to video which they are under no obligation to provide. If that is the case, then I see nothing wrong here. 2) Agreed, however it is not unreasonable to expect to be identified when taking part in a public activity. You could just as easily be identified by police who were there, or via someone's phone footage uploaded to youtube. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Further, I see no reason to expect that the LAPD intends to do anything other than investigate criminal actions with this footage [0]. [0] Although the history of the LAPD would suggest they might use it for harassment.

bhauer 6y ago

I am a self-hosted partisan, so I obviously avoid Ring. But this article feels disingenuous in implying that there is something uniquely nefarious about Ring here, aside from perhaps the relative ease by which the authorities are able to request video. The police also can and do ask those who run self-hosted surveillance systems for video of events; I know because I've been asked before for video from mine. So, yes, it's very easy to request video from Ring users. But they still do need to ask. The only way I am going to be genuinely upset about this is if they are able to get video without asking the individual owners.

conception 6y ago
Owners have to op into "Neighborhood Watch" for their neighborhoods but they are opting into package thieves, not protest monitoring. And it's all or nothing, not a per video request. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel... By tapping into “a perceived need for more self-surveillance and by playing on consumer fears about crime and security,” he added, Ring has found “a clever workaround for the development of a wholly new surveillance network, without the kind of scrutiny that would happen if it was coming from the police or government.”
- d1zzy 6y ago
  So the request here is that Amazon makes it more possible to be more specific about what use you allow for the cameras and give users flexibility to not be all-or-nothing. Seems reasonable.
- kodah 6y ago
  When someone says, "perceived" I usually receive that as, "someone thinks they need this but they don't" Just some hasty research: https://www.crresearch.com/blog/2019-package-theft-statistics-report https://www.crresearch.com/blog/2019-package-theft-statistic... https://www.security.org/resources/stolen-packages-survey/ https://www.security.org/resources/stolen-packages-survey/ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/10/package-theft-how-amazon-google-others-are-fighting-porch-pirates.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/10/package-theft-how-amazon... > With one single package potentially containing hundreds of dollars worth of goods, package thieves, or “porch pirates,” see an Amazon box as a ripe opportunity to steal. More than one-third (36%) have been a victim of package theft. Of those, 44% have had a package stolen at least twice. Most package theft victims (83%) said they contacted the seller or Amazon immediately after finding out their package had been stolen, while only 13% called the police right away. Overall, very few (11%) said the porch pirate was caught, but thankfully, 73% of package theft victims said they eventually received a refund. This seems to substantiate that package theft is at the very least a common problem for the people they polled. Whether Ring engineered a national surveillance network on purpose sounds like something that needs to be proven. Just talking about outcomes without examining what (legitimate) problem they're trying to solve does not help inform the public. The way I end up reading the situation is that some people want to aid the police to find package thieves but they don't want to aid police in finding people suspected of crimes during protests. Personally, I'll take this debate a step further: I don't think it should be legal to film anyone without their consent because that practice will always be abused by bad actors. Whether you're antagonizing people by recording them in public or you're surveiling a protest. My idea would be to craft laws saying you can't capture any video for anything off of your property. You could also encourage users to relocate their cameras to positions that only capture the front door vicinity.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Why is this a problem? If customers are sharing footage either voluntarily or in response to a legal request driven by a court order, then I don't think anything wrong is happening. Filming public spaces is totally legal. And those acting illegally outside the bounds of what is allowed under the right to assembly should be brought to justice. There's nothing wrong with that. It's unclear to me why the EFF is even picking this fight.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

option 6y ago

nothing wrong if police asks user’s permission to view the video.

7174n6 6y ago

I hate to see this. There are so many legitimate causes for the EFF to fight for and they choose this? The police trying to identify people who turned a legitimate protest into riots filled with looting and criminal mischief? It seems to me the police are just trying to identify the bad actors, nothing more. I support the EFF but this effort is misguided and the article is disingenuous.

basilgohar 6y ago
The government getting around regulations of state surveillance by using private equipment owned by individuals but likely without their knowledge in partnership with large corporations to monitor the public sounds like exactly the kind of thing I want the EFF to use my donations to fight so that it does not become more pervasive. The fact that today it was used for something you do not object today is just temporary. The EFF looks down the path to what this means for the future and fights to prevent that.
elil17 6y ago
> It seems to me the police are just trying to identify bad actors My concern is that the expanded subpoena powers of the police allow for excessive amounts of parallel construction. Say (hypothetically - this obviously isn't what is happening here) a cop wants hit someone with as many traffic violations as possible because of a personal grudge. If they found an unrelated crime near an area where the person typically drives, they could then subpoena all the Ring videos from that area and use them to go after the person they were originally interested in. The problem is that when you grant police power in one case, they get to keep that power and use it whenever they want.
mleonhard 6y ago
Society is better off when police show probable cause before getting data of private citizens. In the article, EFF highlights two cases where police made unspecific requests for data of large swaths of people. Such requests have a chilling effect on our society. I think this is exactly what EFF should be doing. It's why I support them.
- 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

It's terrible that the police are getting access to a bunch of cameras pointed at the street, but not very notable that they're using the tools we're giving them to do the job we're telling them to do.

elil17 6y ago
> EFF and ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco on behalf of three protesters, asking the court to require the city to follow its Surveillance Technology Ordinance and prohibit the SFPD from acquiring, borrowing, or using non-city networks of surveillance cameras absent prior approval from the city’s Board of Supervisors. It seems like they're actually ignoring laws which are supposed to put checks and balances on their ability to acquire surveillance data.

whiddershins 6y ago

I hate the panopticon. I sympathize with police wanting to identify bad actors within protests, as they really can terrorize an entire neighborhood and often undermine whatever just cause was being fought for. I also think the road to the surveillance state will always be paved with ‘good reasons.’ I think criminals need to be held accountable. I think endless footage of protestors could be used to at some point retaliate against people who are peacefully protesting. This has already happened to people who peacefully attended Trump Rallies, I see no reason why it couldn’t just as easily be used to discriminate against BLM organizers if that movement ever falls out of favor. So I am conflicted. Mostly I am still sad we’ve had so much violence in our protests over the 8 months or so.

dave_aiello 6y ago

After reading this article and the comments here on HN, I wonder if anyone else has thought about the presence of Smarthome devices that are compatible with [HomeKit Secure Video], how the police agencies would have pursued video from those cameras, and if they would have made the additional effort to request that video in the first place? [HomeKit Secure Video]: https://www.the-ambient.com/guides/apple-homekit-secure-video-explainer-1814 https://www.the-ambient.com/guides/apple-homekit-secure-vide...

thraway12 6y ago

Is there a Discord that routinely discusses issues like this?

known 6y ago

And in India, Disha Ravi, 21, is facing sedition charges, accused of sharing a Google Doc about the farmers protest with Greta Thunberg https://archive.is/B1L8i https://archive.is/B1L8i