5 ms·

Sounds nice if the police doesn't have direct access to all cameras, but instead needs to talk with the nearby buildings. Some balance between capturing crime o

Sounds nice if the police doesn't have direct access to all cameras, but instead needs to talk with the nearby buildings. Some balance between capturing crime on camera, and not having a surveillance state -- from the so-many-cameras point of view. But I suppose there are things I don't know (and wouldn't like), related to this

kennywinker 4y ago
If the cops can demand, rather than request, the video, that's not really a check or a balance on the surveillance state. All it functionally means is that collecting footage is not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at.
- wwweston 4y ago
  Those may not be adequate checks, but they are checks, and personally I think it's worth worrying that the day could come when we'll look back with nostalgia on "not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at."
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    I worry about that too, but my hopeful vision of the future is when we look back in disgust at the lack of limitations on government surveillance.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Just requiring the cop to let go of his coffee and go there in person is enough. It is not practical. I mean Stasi with all their agents could not dream of having all the PI Google and Zuckerberg have.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    The stasi didn't need that much information, or automation tech, to suppress dissent and ruin lives. I'm not complaining that those checks exist, but I am saying we definitely need more than that to protect us from a surveillance state.
    - rightbyte 4y ago
      Stasi had like 200 000 informants and we're drowning in the shear weight of their paper archives. There was a practical limit on how much they could surveil even with total commitment. Which is relevant to my point that the police should have some work to gather data to keep down the scale. Obviously, Stasi did persecute people in far worse way than Google et al. do right now.
      - walterbell 4y ago
        In Austin, TX and likely other US cities, https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-24/apds-secret-informants-eyeing-neighbors-for-suspicious-activity-leaked-documents-reveal/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-24/apds-secret-... > secret citizen spying program that's active in the Austin area and across the country ... Threat Liaison Officers (TLOs), who report suspicious activity or behavior ... each TLO must sign a nondisclosure agreement with ARIC, including those not working in law enforcement, essentially creating secret citizen officers. These informants, known as For Official Use Only TLOs, are able to access the fusion centers' national intelligence database (excluding personal identifying information). The FOUO TLOs include private security officers with local hotels, malls, large venues, and local semiconductor companies.
- tim333 4y ago
  Living in London, if anything the police lean towards not looking at enough surveillance video rather than too much. There are not many police doing this compared to the number or crimes. I had my phone snatched in central London and mistakenly ran to the nearest police station thinking they might go after them. But no - sit and wait an hour or two, fill a form. I said it was outside a business with a camera but they wouldn't apply to the owner and go through the vids because it was too much work. Funnily enough they did have a look at bus footage - apparently all London busses have cameras - in spite of me saying there wasn't a bus near at the time. Guess that was easier for them to get.
- darreninthenet 4y ago
  They can request and 99% of the time people just give it to them - all completely legal. However you can also legally refuse and then they need a warrant from magistrate's court. I believe they can demand you don't destroy it though as that will be a criminal offence once they've told you.
xapata 4y ago
Even better when the public surveils the state.

kennywinker 4y ago

If the cops can demand, rather than request, the video, that's not really a check or a balance on the surveillance state. All it functionally means is that collecting footage is not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at.

wwweston 4y ago
Those may not be adequate checks, but they are checks, and personally I think it's worth worrying that the day could come when we'll look back with nostalgia on "not automated, and there is some small back flow of information about what is being looked at."
- kennywinker 4y ago
  I worry about that too, but my hopeful vision of the future is when we look back in disgust at the lack of limitations on government surveillance.
rightbyte 4y ago
Just requiring the cop to let go of his coffee and go there in person is enough. It is not practical. I mean Stasi with all their agents could not dream of having all the PI Google and Zuckerberg have.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  The stasi didn't need that much information, or automation tech, to suppress dissent and ruin lives. I'm not complaining that those checks exist, but I am saying we definitely need more than that to protect us from a surveillance state.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Stasi had like 200 000 informants and we're drowning in the shear weight of their paper archives. There was a practical limit on how much they could surveil even with total commitment. Which is relevant to my point that the police should have some work to gather data to keep down the scale. Obviously, Stasi did persecute people in far worse way than Google et al. do right now.
    - walterbell 4y ago
      In Austin, TX and likely other US cities, https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-24/apds-secret-informants-eyeing-neighbors-for-suspicious-activity-leaked-documents-reveal/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-24/apds-secret-... > secret citizen spying program that's active in the Austin area and across the country ... Threat Liaison Officers (TLOs), who report suspicious activity or behavior ... each TLO must sign a nondisclosure agreement with ARIC, including those not working in law enforcement, essentially creating secret citizen officers. These informants, known as For Official Use Only TLOs, are able to access the fusion centers' national intelligence database (excluding personal identifying information). The FOUO TLOs include private security officers with local hotels, malls, large venues, and local semiconductor companies.
tim333 4y ago
Living in London, if anything the police lean towards not looking at enough surveillance video rather than too much. There are not many police doing this compared to the number or crimes. I had my phone snatched in central London and mistakenly ran to the nearest police station thinking they might go after them. But no - sit and wait an hour or two, fill a form. I said it was outside a business with a camera but they wouldn't apply to the owner and go through the vids because it was too much work. Funnily enough they did have a look at bus footage - apparently all London busses have cameras - in spite of me saying there wasn't a bus near at the time. Guess that was easier for them to get.
darreninthenet 4y ago
They can request and 99% of the time people just give it to them - all completely legal. However you can also legally refuse and then they need a warrant from magistrate's court. I believe they can demand you don't destroy it though as that will be a criminal offence once they've told you.

xapata 4y ago

Even better when the public surveils the state.