4 ms·

Police surveillance of constitutionally protected activities have a chilling effect that might prevent people from exercising their rights and can therefore be

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.
    - bratbag 6y ago
      I disagree. The police should not be asking for blanket surveillance in the first place. It should be on a per-crime basis, with specifics.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        The emails suggest this is actually the case: owners were emailed with a specific request linked to a specific incident number and a message from a named detective. They were free to choose whether to share or not and given that I'm sure residents could spot the BLM protest connection I'm sure some were more willing to share than others. Emails (with actual incidents and location details redacted) are apparently here https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redacted.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redact...
    - kbar13 6y ago
      agreed on #1 i think for 2, you've identified why it's a little iffy... yes if you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. however the context of where you are matters, and the frame of why the police is trying to identify matters. ideally most people who are participating in a peaceful protest should have no fear of being identified, but that isn't the case rn. in a sense, the surveillance discussion is a proxy for "the police have too much power and not enough oversight"
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > "the police have too much power and not enough oversight" On this general point we agree.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  You don't see a problem when a constitutionally protected activity summons a police brigade? What exactly is police doing watching people exercise their rights? I think you can understand that people who have thought about this a lot more than you can realize the problem here.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Protests are monitored by police because mobs are a very real threat whenever a large group of people assemble for a cause. The mere existence of police surveillance in a public demonstration is not at all unreasonable in my opinion. Case in point, if there was no police presence whatsoever at the Capital protest there's a very real possibility a few senators might be dead right now.
    - Fogest 6y ago
      And let's be fair, it's not uncommon especially at larger protests for their to be conflict that requires police intervention. Just like how police forces will have the bad people that bring down the rest of the force, groups of protestors also face similar problems. Different people in the protest have different perspectives and ideas of what makes a good protest and what is effective. Some people think violence and destruction is needed and often these people have mob-like effect. If one person starts doing it often that spreads through the group and more people are breaking laws. Without some law and order in there things get out of hand pretty quick as we have seen in many protests in America, but also across the world.
  - ggreer 6y ago
    The police weren't using Ring to do any sort of blanket surveillance of protesters. They were investigating crimes. All requests from the LAPD referenced specific case numbers. See page 22 of this pdf[1] for an example. I've transcribed one: --- > Dear Neighbor, > Ring is contacting you on behalf of Detective Alex Giron of the Los Angeles Police Department, who is seeking videos recorded between [redacted], in connection with the investigation of an incident (Incident #[redacted]) near your home. > A message from Detective Giron: > Hello Ring neighbors. We are looking for any video that may help us identify a suspect that [redacted]. Any information would be appreciated. > Sharing your video recordings with the Los Angeles Police Department is entirely optional and will not provide the department with access to your Ring device(s). If you choose to share your Ring video recordings, the Los Angeles Police Department will also receive your email address and street address. Click the button below to review and share select Ring video recordings. > If you do not wish to participate, simply ignore this request and nothing will be shared with the Los Angeles Police Department, including whether or not this request was sent to you. If you do not wish to receive requests like these in the future, click here to opt out. --- The request then gives some contact info for the detective in case the recipient has any questions. I see nothing objectionable about this request. It looks to be entirely opt-in. It protects the privacy of Ring users while also making it convenient for citizens to help the police solve crimes. That the EFF is making a big deal of this only serves to reduce my respect for them. I now worry that they're going down the same path as the ACLU and SPLC. 1. https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redacted.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redact...
tharne 6y ago
And yet if the police weren't present, these very same protestors would likely accuse the police of "institutional racism" for failing to protect the protestors.
- sixothree 6y ago
  You have evidence of this happening in the past?
threatofrain 6y ago
This isn't simply police surveillance; this is citizen surveillance using a common technology, and the citizens are voluntarily offering information to the police. They could've just as easily uploaded it to YouTube.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Something can be technically legal but also have a devastating effect on civil liberties. There's a lot more information available here than would be on, for example YouTube. The most salient is that YouTube lacks timestamping. So a video pulled from YT might not be credible evidence because there's no way to prove when the video was recorded. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine where a video was recorded. My contrast, Ring contains all of the metadata necessary for video evidence to be admissible in court. There's all the who/what/when/where information along with chain of custody guarantees.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    I wasn't focusing on what's technically illegal. I just don't want the conversation mixing up police with citizen surveillance. The admissibility of evidence in court sounds like an issue related to minor details in the implementation of recording technology at the user end. But the final link that is really impactful is when citizens cooperate with police.

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.
  - bratbag 6y ago
    I disagree. The police should not be asking for blanket surveillance in the first place. It should be on a per-crime basis, with specifics.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      The emails suggest this is actually the case: owners were emailed with a specific request linked to a specific incident number and a message from a named detective. They were free to choose whether to share or not and given that I'm sure residents could spot the BLM protest connection I'm sure some were more willing to share than others. Emails (with actual incidents and location details redacted) are apparently here https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redacted.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redact...
  - kbar13 6y ago
    agreed on #1 i think for 2, you've identified why it's a little iffy... yes if you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. however the context of where you are matters, and the frame of why the police is trying to identify matters. ideally most people who are participating in a peaceful protest should have no fear of being identified, but that isn't the case rn. in a sense, the surveillance discussion is a proxy for "the police have too much power and not enough oversight"
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > "the police have too much power and not enough oversight" On this general point we agree.
stefan_ 6y ago
You don't see a problem when a constitutionally protected activity summons a police brigade? What exactly is police doing watching people exercise their rights? I think you can understand that people who have thought about this a lot more than you can realize the problem here.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Protests are monitored by police because mobs are a very real threat whenever a large group of people assemble for a cause. The mere existence of police surveillance in a public demonstration is not at all unreasonable in my opinion. Case in point, if there was no police presence whatsoever at the Capital protest there's a very real possibility a few senators might be dead right now.
  - Fogest 6y ago
    And let's be fair, it's not uncommon especially at larger protests for their to be conflict that requires police intervention. Just like how police forces will have the bad people that bring down the rest of the force, groups of protestors also face similar problems. Different people in the protest have different perspectives and ideas of what makes a good protest and what is effective. Some people think violence and destruction is needed and often these people have mob-like effect. If one person starts doing it often that spreads through the group and more people are breaking laws. Without some law and order in there things get out of hand pretty quick as we have seen in many protests in America, but also across the world.
- ggreer 6y ago
  The police weren't using Ring to do any sort of blanket surveillance of protesters. They were investigating crimes. All requests from the LAPD referenced specific case numbers. See page 22 of this pdf[1] for an example. I've transcribed one: --- > Dear Neighbor, > Ring is contacting you on behalf of Detective Alex Giron of the Los Angeles Police Department, who is seeking videos recorded between [redacted], in connection with the investigation of an incident (Incident #[redacted]) near your home. > A message from Detective Giron: > Hello Ring neighbors. We are looking for any video that may help us identify a suspect that [redacted]. Any information would be appreciated. > Sharing your video recordings with the Los Angeles Police Department is entirely optional and will not provide the department with access to your Ring device(s). If you choose to share your Ring video recordings, the Los Angeles Police Department will also receive your email address and street address. Click the button below to review and share select Ring video recordings. > If you do not wish to participate, simply ignore this request and nothing will be shared with the Los Angeles Police Department, including whether or not this request was sent to you. If you do not wish to receive requests like these in the future, click here to opt out. --- The request then gives some contact info for the detective in case the recipient has any questions. I see nothing objectionable about this request. It looks to be entirely opt-in. It protects the privacy of Ring users while also making it convenient for citizens to help the police solve crimes. That the EFF is making a big deal of this only serves to reduce my respect for them. I now worry that they're going down the same path as the ACLU and SPLC. 1. https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redacted.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2021/02/11/nr20-5328_emails_redact...

tharne 6y ago

And yet if the police weren't present, these very same protestors would likely accuse the police of "institutional racism" for failing to protect the protestors.

sixothree 6y ago
You have evidence of this happening in the past?

threatofrain 6y ago

This isn't simply police surveillance; this is citizen surveillance using a common technology, and the citizens are voluntarily offering information to the police. They could've just as easily uploaded it to YouTube.

mywittyname 6y ago
Something can be technically legal but also have a devastating effect on civil liberties. There's a lot more information available here than would be on, for example YouTube. The most salient is that YouTube lacks timestamping. So a video pulled from YT might not be credible evidence because there's no way to prove when the video was recorded. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine where a video was recorded. My contrast, Ring contains all of the metadata necessary for video evidence to be admissible in court. There's all the who/what/when/where information along with chain of custody guarantees.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  I wasn't focusing on what's technically illegal. I just don't want the conversation mixing up police with citizen surveillance. The admissibility of evidence in court sounds like an issue related to minor details in the implementation of recording technology at the user end. But the final link that is really impactful is when citizens cooperate with police.