38 ms·
Oakland cops gave ICE license plate data; SFPD also illegally shared with feds
- umeshunni 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- danso 1y agoTry reading to the end of the paragraph. > The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoShoutout to 404 Media’s reporting on this, it’s causing states to take action against Flock. I’m unsure if oversight would’ve kicked in without this reporting.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago[flagged]
- Cheer2171 1y agoContinue with the rest of the paragraph: "Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access." These were approved by governments that promised the data would never be shared with the feds. Only in the most lawyer bullshit word gymnastics could you arrive at the conclusion there is nothing to see here. You are being intellectually dishonest.
- perihelions 1y ago[YC S17] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
- josefresco 1y ago"The first public safety operating system that eliminates crime." I've heard of "startup founder hubris" before but this is a new level.
- barbazoo 1y ago> Our flock of hard-working employees thrive in a positive and inclusive environment I'm honestly surprised they weren't too woke for them.
- lupire 1y agoOccasional reminder that YC application required applicants to give an eample of how they cheated a system for personal gain. YC prefers "naughty" founders over honest ones.
- barbazoo 1y agoYC prefers potential profit over anything else it seems, otherwise I can't imagine how this would have gone through.
- Ar-Curunir 1y agoBecause VCs are psychopaths by most measures? I mean just look at Andreesen, or Thiel, or any of the ghouls creating a fascist state.
- int_19h 1y agoI was curious about this and found the precise wording of the question: > Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage.
- neuroelectron 1y ago[flagged]
- jalapeno_b 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoA fairly key aspect of American federalism is there are a lot of things the Feds can't force states to participate in, as provided in the Tenth Amendment. (Known as anti-commandeering doctrine.)
- neuroelectron 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoThis is one Supreme Court case from going away.
- actionfromafar 1y agoIn that case putting a light on that "State rights" was just talk.
- int_19h 1y agoWe already know that from numerous past attempts to restrict abortion on the federal level etc.
- 1y ago
- aerostable_slug 1y agoThere's nothing here showing the law was broken. Perhaps an inquiry will show otherwise, but there are plenty of reasons ICE via CHP might be looking for a vehicle that aren't related to immigration law enforcement (perhaps they're looking for a truck full of smuggled contraband, for example).
- NewJazz 1y agoSeriously?
- ceejayoz 1y agoI mean, California Highway Patrol seems to disagree. > “If any CHP personnel requested license plate data on behalf of ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement, that would be a blatant violation of both state law and longstanding department policy,” the spokesperson wrote. “If these allegations are confirmed, there will be consequences.”
- aerostable_slug 1y agoYou missed the key phrase "for the purposes of immigration enforcement." If they're looking for a load of meth, it's fair game.
- ceejayoz 1y agoIt's not a key phrase. It's alleged that this particular violation was for that purpose. The law itself - https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb... - doesn't specify immigration purposes. https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-... also indicates a number of specific requests had "immigration" as the given reason.
- halestock 1y ago? > Under a decade-old state law, California police are prohibited from sharing data from automated license plate readers with out-of-state and federal agencies. Attorney General Rob Bonta affirmed that fact in a 2023 notice to police.
- DanAtC 1y ago[flagged]
- aerostable_slug 1y ago[flagged]
- revlolz 1y agoSeems like it, the user's other comments are an atrocious downgrade to HN standards.
- testfrequency 1y agoI’ve had my comments removed in the past for saying this, but HN has become toxic the past few years. I’ve been ok with the nerd sniping, it’s one of the best parts of HN - but recently I’ve noticed a fair amount of disgusting comments and takes. These users I am often fascinated by, so of course when I view their HN post history it’s all mostly edgy hatred or whataboutism. I think the biggest issue is this forum has been circulated on X far too often and the gates being wide open, people love to come in thinking they want to disrupt civil concourse for sake of diversion. I do sometimes wonder how this forum would look if it was only limited to people who either run, work, or worked at a Y company. edit: also a quick thank you to the mods who I know do their best. this thread is yet another example simply based on the amount of flagged comments
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dang 1y ago> I’ve had my comments removed in the past for saying this, but HN has become toxic the past few years. We don't remove anyone's comments for reasons like that. In fact, we go out of our way not to, which is one reason that there is so much complaining about HN on HN.
- 1y ago
- mixmastamyk 1y agoIf you don’t think this system should be used, it should never have been built in the first place. Relying on a state law to prevent sharing data sounds rather naive. Second, the page barely mentions ice, title is begging for clicks. > “We take privacy seriously…
- ceejayoz 1y agoA gun has a trigger. It is a system intended to be used. You cannot legally use it to rob a bank, though. Specific uses of that system are forbidden.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mixmastamyk 1y agoLaw enforcement types don’t think of doing their job as equivalent to “robbing a bank,” so the thought process you are relying on can’t work.
- LeifCarrotson 1y agoAn ICBM has a trigger, too. But you can't buy one at Wal Mart, and be trusted to only pull that trigger in situations when the uses of that system are legal! We don't sell them to consumers because the anticipated and obvious outcomes are harmful. Flock Safety generated a treasure trove of highly sensitive data. In theory, there's nothing wrong with collecting that data, or even using it to investigate specific crimes with searches of limited scope under a judicial warrant. It's only harmful when used inappropriately... but no one should be surprised when that happened.
- frollogaston 1y agoThe article mentions ICE usage, including a link to an entire article about it. Nothing wrong with the title mentioning it.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
- potato3732842 1y agoThe law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not. If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up. These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
- whats_a_quasar 1y agoFair enough, but it is also valid to be angry at your local law enforcement if they are acting against the community's preferences. Especially when local law enforcement is breaking state law in the process.
- mc32 1y agoBut that would put them between federal law vs state law and federal law supersedes state law and state law supersedes local laws.
- ceejayoz 1y agoThere are plenty of things Federal law can't do under the Tenth Amendment. As an example, the Feds can round up marijuana users in California, if they like. They can't require California's law enforcement to help.
- fooker 1y agoDoesn't seem like there was 'force' involved. There's no law prohibiting local agencies helping feds.
- renewiltord 1y ago[flagged]
- moomoo11 1y agoSame
- Ylpertnodi 1y agoWhy not legalise [some more] drugs to help solve the problems? The unfortunates get the fix. The dealers won't deal. The state gets the money.
- moomoo11 1y agoBecause the drugs are 100x worse than alcohol. These drug addicts behavior is worse than alcoholics. I’d rather live in a society where people don’t need to turn to drugs. And I would prefer building a coalition of like minded people and stamp out druggies and their enablers. Supply and demand. Crush them both.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y agoBeen doing that since the 80s, how's it going?
- moomoo11 1y agoPeople choose to do drugs. End of day, it is all mental.
- spankalee 1y agoSome people like to use drugs. It's their body, and should be their right. If you have a problem with specific behavior that you associate with drugs - and that behavior negatively affects other people and is not protected - the regulate that behavior.
- 1y ago
- Havoc 1y agoUS seems like a free for all with sensitive data lately
- vkou 1y agoIt is. Some of it is being accessed illegally (ICE has been given full access to the IRS, which is a violation of the fifth amendment, local LE sharing it in contravention with state laws), and some of it is being accessed legally (local LE sharing it in compliance with state laws). The criminals are, sadly, running the circus, and they are acting like they'll never lose power.
- Hikikomori 1y agoAt this point they're unlikely to lose power unless there's a military coup dismantling the entire extreme right.
- ModernMech 1y agoThe pendulum always swings. Always. History is littered with the corpses of seemingly unstoppable movements that were invincible until they suddenly were not.
- Hikikomori 1y agoAlso littered with actual corpses killed by the people trying or being successful in stopping the pendulum from swinging away from them. Its pretty clear that this administration is gearing up to do just that, and going by what the people behind it are saying (federalist society, project 2025, Yarvin and their billionaire funders) they're not afraid of bloodshed either.
- vkou 1y agoWhen will the pendulum swing away from repression and autocracy in Russia? Anyone waiting for that swing has been waiting for hundreds of years, as it's gone through one flavour of despotism to another. Since Peter the Great in the 18th century, the country's had, what... Two years of freedom?
- unit149 1y ago[dead]
- some_random 1y agoCops do the thing they always wanted to do as soon as leadership vaguely hints that they won't be punished for it, what a surprise.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lupire 1y agoWhat is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature? The local executive is breaking legislature's law. The governor should be ordering state police and lawyers to prosecute these local officials, or else the legislature should impeach the governor.
- bjornsing 1y agoDon’t hold your breath.
- duped 1y agoThe system in place for dealing with corrupt law enforcement is federal law enforcement. It should be obvious why our ever growing police state ruled by fascists is not going to police itself. The only feasible response to lawlessness of those empowered to uphold the law is to periodically remind them that legal authority is derived from the will of the people. Thomas Jefferson said this more elegantly than I could.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature? State and local attorneys general. In this case, an individual harmed may also bring civil claims under California law.
- roamerz 1y ago>>What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature? Probably the same as it is at the federal level - voting out of office. During the Biden/Harris term there was a complete dereliction of duty when it came to border enforcement. Actually it was worse than that - they helped people illegally cross the border, even flew them in on the taxpayer dime. This is why we have President Trump today.
- HardCodedBias 1y ago[flagged]
- PortiaBerries 1y agoThis whole mess started because we haven't been doing #1 when it comes to immigration.
- int_19h 1y agoIt is a federal law, and thus enforcement should be happening on the federal level. The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement. The states are fully within their rights to withhold state law enforcement resources to focus on state laws.
- charcircuit 1y ago>The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement. Local law enforcement should not just enforce the law of the specific city they are in. They should enforce all applicable laws: city, county, state, country, etc.
- int_19h 1y agoYou're conflating incomparable things here. The reason why local law enforcement enforces state laws is because municipalities don't have any political sovereignty of their own - they are granted their authority by the state government, and as such, it can come with arbitrary strings attached and can be changed and revoked entirely at any moment. This is not the case when you consider the relationship between the states and the federal government, though. While the states obviously aren't fully sovereign, the federated structure of our country explicitly grants them limited sovereignty that is innate and not in any way derived or subject to the federal authority. Thus the ability of the federal government to commandeer state governments to its own ends is rather limited and needs to be explicitly spelled out (e.g. National Guard can be federalized, but State Defense Forces cannot). And last I checked, there are no clauses in the Constitution that give the feds the power to commandeer state law enforcement to enforce federal laws; nor did the courts find such power implicit in other clauses.
- option 1y ago[flagged]
- aaomidi 1y agoBecause that’s not their jurisdiction and are not allowed by the people who pay their salary?
- barbazoo 1y agoRBAC for example. Not everyone has and should have the same kind of access. Even at my dayjob I can imagine use cases where it would be inappropriate to provide certain data even to some coworker internally.
- ceejayoz 1y agoThe people of California desired a license plate reader system for certain purposes, but not others. The Tenth Amendment permits them to do so.
- mulmen 1y agoThis is a Chesterton’s fence situation. If you can’t identify the problem that this law solves then you aren’t qualified to remove it. The law exists for a reason, I encourage you to imagine what that might be.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoCool, but SB34 doesn't let this particular set of data be shared with out-of-state agencies for those purposes either. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf > Accordingly, SB 34 does not permit California LEAs to share ALPR information with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. This prohibition applies to ALPR database(s) that LEAs access through private or public vendors who maintain ALPR information collected from multiple databases and/or public agencies.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y agoThey would not be able to refuse a valid federal warrant, however.
- monkaiju 1y agoUnfortunately typical, cops have always and will continue to act like a gang free from any consequences. If you wanna do something about it then help turn the surveillance spotlight back at them: https://app.copdb.org/ https://app.copdb.org/
- msarrel 1y ago[flagged]
- thaumaturgy 1y agoFlock is absolutely designed to facilitate and encourage this kind of abuse. They have extensive data sharing built in to their system while promising agencies that the users "own" the data. My local police department just recently got a grant for these and is in the process of setting them up, and I'm working with a number of local technologists and activists to shut it down. We are showing up at every police commission meeting and every city council meeting and keeping actively engaged with local press. I spent almost three hours yesterday having coffee with a police commissioner and I have meeting requests from a number of other local officials. There are similar efforts ongoing in other cities across the U.S. An interesting one to keep an eye on is Cedar Rapids, which includes a neat teardown of one of the devices: https://eyesoffcr.org/blog/blog-8.html https://eyesoffcr.org/blog/blog-8.html Immediately after setting up the system -- before all of the devices were even fully online -- our local PD began sharing access with departments in non-sanctuary states. When we asked questions about it, they hid that section from their transparency page. We are cooking them publicly for that. Flock is VC-funded commercialized mass surveillance.
- techdmn 1y agoChiming in to add crowd-sourced flock camera locations: https://deflock.me/ https://deflock.me/
- kyle_martin1 1y agoThis is political. Keep it off hacker news.
- modeless 1y agoI can't believe this is such an unpopular opinion. I don't think HN is a place for me anymore.
- kyle_martin1 1y ago[dead]
- guywithahat 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Federal law trumps state law. Constitution trumps Federal law. Tenth Amendment: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Feds are welcome to enforce immigration law. They cannot require California to participate. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10-4-2/ALDE_00013627/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10-4-2/AL...
- empath75 1y ago> Federal law trumps state law. This is absolutely not true in general, and the constitution explicitly circumscribes the jurisdiction of federal law.
- zo1 1y agoIt's also a very divisive and sensitive topic. I think we've been playing "everyone gets along" for far too long, and it's become obvious to the meek that people are gaming the system whilst pretending to get along. A correction is necessary, and that's precisely what you're witnessing here.
- peterfirefly 1y agoWhy is it illegal to uphold federal law? Isn't it the state law that is illegal in this case?
- aprilthird2021 1y agoMarijuana was legalized in contravention to federal law
- rapatel0 1y agoThe supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement. The federal government and DOJ has declined to prosecute Marijuana, but they definitely have the right to do so.
- aprilthird2021 1y ago> One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement. Some states took over a decade after Brown v Board to actually integrate school systems. So again, another instance of state laws seeming to trump federal laws. If the idea is just not enforcing the supremacy of federal laws is enough, then not enforcing the federal law over the state law which bar sharing info with federal agencies is also in place here so far
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Gormo 1y agoNo -- states repealing their own laws against marijuana have nothing to do with federal law, and do not prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws in any way. The states are not obligated to implement their own policies in order to further federal interests, nor to participate in the enforcement of federal law.
- say_it_as_it_is 1y agoTracking the vehicles registered to illegal immigrants shouldn't be a controversial subject
- GuinansEyebrows 1y agodo we track the vehicles of people cited for jaywalking? because "illegal immigration" is mainly a civil offense, not a criminal offense.
- newfriend 1y agois the penalty for jaywalking deportation? are jaywalkers not authorized to be in the United States? Also a large proportion of illegal aliens crossed the border illegally. Which therefore makes them criminals, since improper entry is a federal crime.
- saubeidl 1y ago"The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households; and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens." The Gestapo was only enforcing the law! Intermarriages were illegal. Which therefore made the Jews criminals, since violating race laws was a federal crime.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago> Also a large proportion of illegal aliens crossed the border illegally. Which therefore makes them criminals, since improper entry is a federal crime. that must be proven on a case-by-case basis and is impossible to determine by visual observation alone.
- DudeOpotomus 1y agoTrue. They also do not hold insurance and typically do not have drivers licenses. Although CA will give one to anyone with a pulse... Having been hit twice by non-insured, non-licensed drivers with no paperwork or legal status, they got off free while I had to pay for their crimes, damage and increased insurance rates for years. No sympathy at all for cheaters. Arrest them and confiscate their cars.
- varenc 1y ago> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches Does this mean it wasn't exactly to Oakland Police that violated state law, but rather other CA based law enforcement entities?
- tonymet 1y agoit's also possible the other agencies only shared findings rather than specific records. For example if the law says "plate reader records cannot be shared" and the CHP just confirms the presence of the records , and does not share the records, no violation occurred. You did a good job reading the article from bottom to top. The headline and lead are usually misleading.
- samrus 1y agoOne question is whether OPD violated state law by leaving their data open for anyone to search. When they signed up to these systems, did they know that federal agencies could search their data without OPD needing to do anything?
- varenc 1y agoBut from my quote, it sounds like federal agencies couldn't actually search the data themselves. Rather the Feds would do something like make a request to the Sacramento PD (random example), and then Sacramento would then search the OPD database, and then, presumably, give that data to the feds.
- allthedatas 1y agoDatasets are created to be used. Once created they will eventually likely be used for purposes other than the original intention. Depending on the power dynamics in play this may be more or less likely. There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good! Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything. We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar. Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening. That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
- rapatel0 1y agoThe supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation laws like interracial marriage which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement. Example: Alabama was the last state to remove its ban on interracial marriage from its statutes in 2000, though this was largely symbolic as interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. There is probably a specific federal law enforcement authority that may or may not be in conflict with the state law. It's unclear if this is a 10th amendment violation for the state or if federal law enforcement is granted this authority
- singron 1y agoI don't think there is a 10th amendment violation or a question of federal authority. States can't be compelled to perform federal law enforcement because of the 10th amendment. States are accordingly allowed to prevent their own law enforcement from performing federal law enforcement. If state law enforcement aids the feds anyway, then they are just breaking state law. A 10th amendment violation would be if the feds require the state to perform federal law enforcement. Federal authority is relevant if they e.g. raided state law enforcement offices to take the data without consent, but in this case they are just given the data by state officers.
- rapatel0 1y agoWe don't know what degree of pressure was or was not exerted on state authorities to compel them to support ICE. Also, I don't think sharing data would be considered enforcing federal law.
- 542354234235 1y agoFederal Law takes precedence over State, but the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from directly compelling states to implement or enforce federal law. So local law enforcement is under no obligation to pass information to ICE or assist ICE. It has been ruled on time and time again, from 1842 when Justice Joseph Story affirmed it [1] to Justice Samuel Alito in 2018 [2]. [1] “The clause relating to fugitive slaves is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any State. It might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation to insist that the States are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the National Government nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.” Prigg v. Pennsylvania https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/ [2] “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476
- Spooky23 1y agoThere’s a lot of casual corruption here. Local cops get deputized as marshalls and get overtime, etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lysace 1y ago[flagged]
- nailer 1y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y agoTo break the law?
- nailer 1y agoWhat law?
- ceejayoz 1y agoCalifornia's SB 34. The article in question even links to it. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb... California's AG: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf > Importantly, the definition of “public agency” is limited to state or local agencies, including law enforcement agencies, and does not include out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies. (See Civ. Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06 Code, § 1798.90.5, subd. (f).) Accordingly, SB 34 does not permit California LEAs to share ALPR information with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. This prohibition applies to ALPR database(s) that LEAs access through private or public vendors who maintain ALPR information collected from multiple databases and/or public agencies.
- nailer 1y ago> Existing law prohibits the department from selling the data or from making the data available to an agency that is not a law enforcement agency or an individual that is not a law enforcement officer. Seems like the law was explicitly written to allow sharing data with other law enforcement agencies then narrowed down by Code, § 1798.90.5, subd. (f). https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-90-5/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-90-5/
- gtirloni 1y ago> "If these allegations are confirmed, there will be consequences." Sure.
- calvinmorrison 1y agoyou don't even need license plate data. Every car emits 4 radio frequencies which make you uniquely identifiable even without a camera or plate. We can easily track (and they do) this information. But at least we know our tires arent flat!
- apwell23 1y agoAs part of a Flock search, police have to provide a “reason” they are performing the lookup. In the “reason” field for searches of Danville’s cameras, officers from across the U.S. wrote “immigration,” “ICE,” “ICE+ERO,” for anyone wondering how this was uncovered.
- shortrounddev2 1y agoYou ever notice how basically no justice comes out of the criminal justice system?
- spankalee 1y agoI live in Oakland and this is a difficult topic. The type of crime common here is nearly impossible to address without technological assistance. People steal cars, drive into neighborhoods, then break into other cars and houses. They're gone sometimes before a 911 call can even be made, and far before the police arrive. The criminals know this and are just incredibly brazen about it. They'll finish the job with people watching and recording because they know there's no way for them to be caught. People get followed home and held up in their driveway. The criminals are often armed, and people have been shot and killed for even the mildest of resistance. One guy was killed a block from where I was standing for knocking on the window of a getaway car of some guys stealing another car in broad daylight. Leaving aside broader and more fundamental fixes for crime, which are much longer term projects, the only near-term thing that actually reduces this kind of crime is arrest and conviction rates. In SF, drones have helped reduced car break-ins, because they've actually caught some crews. Oakland doesn't have drones that I know of, but Flock cameras have enabled enough tracking for police to sometimes actually find these people quickly, even several miles away, and make an arrest. Those are just the plain facts of the situation. It's understandable that people want some kind of solution here. Without at least starting from that understanding, it'll be very difficult to convince people that a solution that is having a positive impact already is not worth the other costs and risks. And to me, this is the core conflict at a really high level: the economic and societal fixes for crime are usually opposed by the same people who abuse these kind of surveillance systems for authoritarian purposes. To me it's no coincidence that their preferred solution to crime just happens to help them keep an eye on the whole population.
- ghushn3 1y agoThere's a hugely material difference between deterring local property crime and handing ICE this information. ICE is deporting people to death camps (e.g. CECOT), not giving people due process, operating masked and with military support. ICE is a gestapo in all but name. By all means, find ways to get your community police departments to address crime in your communities. Work with systems outside of police to fix the systemic root causes (crime doesn't "just happen", it's a symptom of other problems). But you don't need the secret police to fix car jackings and break-ins.
- xyzzy9563 1y agoThe supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says that federal laws are supreme over state laws. Therefore, it is illegal not to comply with federal laws.
- ceejayoz 1y agoWhich specific federal law is being violated here by SB34? The Supremacy Clause is regulated, in part, by the Tenth Amendment, which states… > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
- tonymet 1y ago"The OPD (Oakland PD) didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times —
- tonymet 1y agoSo the headline is misleading. It seems like oakland made their records available to state agencies like CHP, and one of those agencies queried the records and shared the query results with federal agencies. And the article doesn't specify which results were shared. So it's clear Oakland didn't violate the law, and there is reasonable doubt that the other agencies didn't violate the law either. Judgements come from judges, not journalists.
- ghushn3 1y ago"I posted the answer key openly in the hallway, how could I possibly know people would use this to cheat on their homework!" They are aware this is happening and are taking no action. They are as culpable as the other agencies.
- tonymet 1y agoThat’s not what is happening here. They shared the records with state agencies legally. And the other agencies may have shared permissible results legally too
- boston_clone 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_sharing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_s... About as "legal" as the domestic spying workaround from Five Eyes.
- tonymet 1y agonearly every US law enforcement agency does plate reading . you're not going to get very far with that argument
- raincom 1y agoALPR (automated license plate readers) are used across state lines to pull out drug mules and other stuff. Many local law enforcement employees are federal task forces involving drugs/guns/cartels/violence. Obviously, Feds have hands on these databases.
- almosthere 1y agoillegal?
- exabrial 1y agoJust so everyone remembers: automated collection is an unlawful search by the constitution. Stop advocating for a police state and expecting something different. (Mandatory registration of objects, mandatory medical procedures, mandatory facial accessories, mandatory automatic government payments to fund all of this)
- slowhadoken 1y agoIt’s illegal because California made it illegal for municipal police to cooperate with federal agents. Trump and future Republicans will use this to accuse Democratic sanctuary cities of being lawless.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- josefritzishere 1y agoCops doing crime.
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- RiOuseR 1y ago[dead]
- nielsbot 1y agoIt was Flock? Surprise, surprise…
- chung8123 1y agoIsn't there a whole trope about how the government is stupid and inefficient because agencies don't help each other out? Seems like in general sharing data is a good thing. Questions are, should the police have the data and are our immigration policies correct. This issues need to be fix at the legal level. If we really want to change this we need to decide what we want immigration to be and not half ass it by looking the other way.
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]