5 ms·

I hope they win, but it won’t be worth much since Amazon can simply collect this data themselves and then sell a subscription to the city. I rarely say this, b

I hope they win, but it won’t be worth much since Amazon can simply collect this data themselves and then sell a subscription to the city. I rarely say this, but we need legislation.

rtkwe 2y ago
I do really hope some day we get legislation that recognizes the data broker hole in the 4th Amendment. IMO if the information would require a warrant/subpoena to get if the police collect it it should require a warrant for them to purchase the data from a 3rd party.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  I feel like if we don't like the government buying this data from a broker, we should make laws that make it so NO one can buy that data from a broker.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    True that's an ideal outcome, given the option though I'd at least block the government from having it.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  There isn't even a hint of extending "papers and effects" to "digital stuff held by a 3rd party" yet. I wouldn't hold my breath. But yes, it's a massive oversight and should be closed. But it won't be because the government benefits soooo much from being able to scrutinize any person's past metadata going back god knows how long on a whim. And speaking of "going back god knows how long". I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that in the whole Fani Lewis Georgia thing they at one point introduced 10yo (!!!) cell location data as evidince in court like it was nothing and normal evidince to have on hand. I forget which side introduced the data or what the "sides" even were in that case but imagine having to defend your cherry picked whereabouts a decade ago from a prosecution team who's already built a narrative about them.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    I could see the courts or legislature taking action on things like location data tracking and some other stuff but I'm not super hopeful on that much less the kind of metadata generated by calls and what not. Ideally both would be covered but I think the former might get some protection before things like call or contact metadata.
- observationist 2y ago
  The nearly unlimited acquisition of private data should be tightly regulated, ephemeral by default, require total transparency in disclosure to any party for any use. Any time any ad or government agency or private individual obtains your data, you should be notified at the expense of the entity obtaining the data. Everything should be proactive and favor the rights of individuals. Not following regulations should be lethal to corporations, disincentivizing the mindless global surveillance apparatus we have now.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  I actually hope that we __don't__ get a law. What I hope is that cases like this succeed in getting the precedent and recognition that we already have a law that prohibits systematic data collection and use like this: the 4th Amendment. Accepting the premise that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here is to accept the very premise that allows governments to try this sort of thing. The courts making clear that the 4th Amendment should be interpreted broadly and that it doesn't matter how novel your surveillance/search methods are to that end is ultimately superior to playing legislative whack-a-mole.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    I think a law is more likely before the Supreme Court does anything close to patching that loophole.
- lancesells 2y ago
  I would much rather they pass laws that you can't acquire, indefinitely hold, or sell the data. Meta and Google should not know where I went for breakfast if I didn't use their services to get there.
paul7986 2y ago
or Meta with their future Ray Bans (i love mine) could create an opt in program where each users can share in revenue from cities to have their feeds while in public recorded/archived. Sure everyone would love that...
abeppu 2y ago
How would it be different if Amazon does it than the current company they're partnering with? It already sounds like there's a subscription structure, which I think implies that the partner company and not the city owns and runs the camera network? > In 2023, Norfolk Police partnered with a company called Flock Safety, Inc. to install 172 automatic license plate reading cameras across town. The cameras were strategically placed to create what Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot referred to as a “nice curtain of technology,” which would make it “difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere.” > Unlike traditional traffic cameras—which capture an image only when they sense speeding or someone running a red light—Flock’s cameras capture images of every car driving by, which it retains for at least 30 days. Artificial intelligence then uses those images to create a “Vehicle Fingerprint” that enables any Flock subscriber to both track where that vehicle has gone and identify what other vehicles it has been seen nearby. This makes it a little ambiguous whether the Flock subscription is for the specific added service of tracking a car around, or access to the whole system.
sbuttgereit 2y ago
This suit is against the city and for its actions, not the company (Flock Safety). While Flock Safety can be used for rights violating purposes, it's ultimately the city's decisions that take advantage of that enablement and actually violate rights. The principle is what is being tested here and, should the IJ prevail against the city, that ruling would apply as equally to Amazon as it does to Flock Safety.
EvanAnderson 2y ago
I think we need legislation requiring government-held warrantless surveillance data, regardless of how it was obtained (via subscription or gathered themselves), to be made available as a public record. I would assume wild unpopularity with the constituency would work to curtail the use of such surveillance. If the constituency didn't balk then, at the very least, the data would be available to the public and would help balance the power dynamic with the government.

I hope they win, but it won’t be worth much since Amazon can simply collect this data themselves and then sell a subscription to the city. I rarely say this, but we need legislation.

rtkwe 2y ago

I do really hope some day we get legislation that recognizes the data broker hole in the 4th Amendment. IMO if the information would require a warrant/subpoena to get if the police collect it it should require a warrant for them to purchase the data from a 3rd party.

cortesoft 2y ago
I feel like if we don't like the government buying this data from a broker, we should make laws that make it so NO one can buy that data from a broker.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  True that's an ideal outcome, given the option though I'd at least block the government from having it.
potato3732842 2y ago
There isn't even a hint of extending "papers and effects" to "digital stuff held by a 3rd party" yet. I wouldn't hold my breath. But yes, it's a massive oversight and should be closed. But it won't be because the government benefits soooo much from being able to scrutinize any person's past metadata going back god knows how long on a whim. And speaking of "going back god knows how long". I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that in the whole Fani Lewis Georgia thing they at one point introduced 10yo (!!!) cell location data as evidince in court like it was nothing and normal evidince to have on hand. I forget which side introduced the data or what the "sides" even were in that case but imagine having to defend your cherry picked whereabouts a decade ago from a prosecution team who's already built a narrative about them.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I could see the courts or legislature taking action on things like location data tracking and some other stuff but I'm not super hopeful on that much less the kind of metadata generated by calls and what not. Ideally both would be covered but I think the former might get some protection before things like call or contact metadata.
observationist 2y ago
The nearly unlimited acquisition of private data should be tightly regulated, ephemeral by default, require total transparency in disclosure to any party for any use. Any time any ad or government agency or private individual obtains your data, you should be notified at the expense of the entity obtaining the data. Everything should be proactive and favor the rights of individuals. Not following regulations should be lethal to corporations, disincentivizing the mindless global surveillance apparatus we have now.
sbuttgereit 2y ago
I actually hope that we __don't__ get a law. What I hope is that cases like this succeed in getting the precedent and recognition that we already have a law that prohibits systematic data collection and use like this: the 4th Amendment. Accepting the premise that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here is to accept the very premise that allows governments to try this sort of thing. The courts making clear that the 4th Amendment should be interpreted broadly and that it doesn't matter how novel your surveillance/search methods are to that end is ultimately superior to playing legislative whack-a-mole.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I think a law is more likely before the Supreme Court does anything close to patching that loophole.
lancesells 2y ago
I would much rather they pass laws that you can't acquire, indefinitely hold, or sell the data. Meta and Google should not know where I went for breakfast if I didn't use their services to get there.

paul7986 2y ago

or Meta with their future Ray Bans (i love mine) could create an opt in program where each users can share in revenue from cities to have their feeds while in public recorded/archived. Sure everyone would love that...

abeppu 2y ago

How would it be different if Amazon does it than the current company they're partnering with? It already sounds like there's a subscription structure, which I think implies that the partner company and not the city owns and runs the camera network? > In 2023, Norfolk Police partnered with a company called Flock Safety, Inc. to install 172 automatic license plate reading cameras across town. The cameras were strategically placed to create what Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot referred to as a “nice curtain of technology,” which would make it “difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere.” > Unlike traditional traffic cameras—which capture an image only when they sense speeding or someone running a red light—Flock’s cameras capture images of every car driving by, which it retains for at least 30 days. Artificial intelligence then uses those images to create a “Vehicle Fingerprint” that enables any Flock subscriber to both track where that vehicle has gone and identify what other vehicles it has been seen nearby. This makes it a little ambiguous whether the Flock subscription is for the specific added service of tracking a car around, or access to the whole system.

sbuttgereit 2y ago

This suit is against the city and for its actions, not the company (Flock Safety). While Flock Safety can be used for rights violating purposes, it's ultimately the city's decisions that take advantage of that enablement and actually violate rights. The principle is what is being tested here and, should the IJ prevail against the city, that ruling would apply as equally to Amazon as it does to Flock Safety.

EvanAnderson 2y ago

I think we need legislation requiring government-held warrantless surveillance data, regardless of how it was obtained (via subscription or gathered themselves), to be made available as a public record. I would assume wild unpopularity with the constituency would work to curtail the use of such surveillance. If the constituency didn't balk then, at the very least, the data would be available to the public and would help balance the power dynamic with the government.