4 ms·
I think the money is a red herring here. In Oak Park, Illinois, we ran into a rhyming version of this problem: the only control we had about what technology OP
by tptacek 9mo ago
I think the money is a red herring here.
In Oak Park, Illinois, we ran into a rhyming version of this problem: the only control we had about what technology OPPD deployed was a spending limit ($15K, if I'm remembering right), above which they had to ask the board for an appropriation. Our pilot deployment of Flock cameras easily went underneath that limit.
I'm not reflexively anti-ALPR camera. I don't like them, but I do local politics and know what my neighbors think, and a pretty significant chunk of my neighbors --- in what is likely one of the top 10 bluest municipalities in the United States (we're the most progressive in Chicagoland, which is saying something) --- want these cameras as a response to violent crime.
But I do believe you have to run a legit process to get them deployed.
OPPD was surprised when, after attempting to graduate their pilot to a broader deployment, a minor fracas erupted at the board. I'm on Oak Park's information systems commission and, with the help of a trustee and after talking to the Board president, got "what the hell do we do about the cameras" assigned to my commission. In conjunction with our police oversight commission (but, really, just us on the nerd commission), we:
* Got General Orders put in place for Flock usage that limited it exclusively to violent crime.
* Set up a monthly usage report regime that allowed the Village to get effectiveness metrics that prevented further rollout and ultimately got the cameras shut down.
* Presented to the board and got enacted an ACLU CCOPS ordinance, which requires board approval for anything broadly construed as "surveillance technology" for policing, whether you spend $1, $100,000, or $0 on it.
Especially if you're in a suburb, where the most important units of governance are responsive to like 15,000-50,000 people, this stuff is all pretty doable if you engage in local politics. It's much trickier if you're within the city limits of a major metro (we're adjacent to Chicago, and by rights should be a part of it), but still.
- rurp 9mo agoThis is very helpful information, thanks for sharing. Vegas is unlikely to be an outlier here, especially given the involvement of Horowitz. I expect that many cities and towns will face similar moves to do an end run around citizen's rights and knowledge.
- SirFatty 9mo agoI cannot imagine a scenario where I'd want those in my neighborhood. Glad you like them, but I hope they don't make it to the west suburbs where I live.
- tptacek 9mo agoWho are you talking about who likes the cameras? It isn't me. But if you're in a suburb of Chicagoland, my guess is your neighbors like them a bunch. They won't like Flock, because of the Trump administration and ICE press around Flock, but ALPRs are commodity technology now and you'll likely roll out some other vendor, like the munis surrounding Oak Park did.
- tokyobreakfast 9mo ago[flagged]
- tptacek 9mo agoThis would be a more compelling rebuttal if I hadn't just told you a story about how we obtained exactly the outcome you claim to want in our own municipality.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- SR2Z 9mo agoAlmost nobody on either side of the aisle likes the government putting up cameras in their neighborhood. It's a reflexive reaction that Americans have to the government stepping on them. They get away with digital surveillance because it's generally well-hidden, but Trump is even changing that.
- tptacek 9mo agoI really don't think this is true. I just watched lots and lots of people in an extraordinarily liberal suburb make impassioned cases for why they wanted these things up.
- righthand 9mo agoThe money being a red herring is a convenient excuse to say “surveillance capitalism is fine because there’s already a legal path to this dystopia and this idea fits right in”. These capital interests have shown even if there is a legal path to stop they will ignore it and try to circumvent it. So the money isn’t a red herring because the money is being used to bypass the legal pathway to stop the deployments.
- tptacek 9mo agoThis comment is one very long sentence and because it replies to me I'm sorry to have to say I'm not smart enough to understand what it's saying. Did you try to get an ordinance enacted in your municipality and fail? I'd love to hear how that went, and maybe offer advice.
- righthand 9mo agoYou’re very clearly defensive about defending flock installs, but yeah I will go back and edit my comment to clarify. Apologies your majesty for forgetting some punctuation while I was sick.
- tptacek 9mo agoI'm defensive about defending Flock installs? I'm one of a small minority of HN commenters that has actually gotten Flock cameras disabled across a municipality.
- righthand 9mo agoOh sorry I can’t read more than 1 sentence so I don’t know what I’m replying to, you’ll have to reword yours.
- tptacek 9mo agoI love that you had to edit this from your original comment, which said "I can't read more than 2 sentences" (in response to my 2-sentence comment). Well played!
- burkaman 9mo agoWhy is the money a red herring? Just like in Oak Park, the police in Vegas are required to follow a democratic process for large purchases, and they were only able to avoid that with the money. > Metro funds the project with donor money funneled into a private foundation. It’s an arrangement that allows Metro to avoid soliciting public comment on the surveillance technology It doesn't matter whether the cameras are a good idea or not, the police should not be able to use a "donation" (from a guy who's going to profit from the donated equipment) to pretend they haven't done anything the public needs to know about. The money is the main issue here, without it the public would have had a chance to discuss all the things you're talking about, and maybe reject them or put in some limitations. I would object to any secret arrangement like this, even if it was something completely innocuous like pencils for schools. There's no reason for significant acquisitions to be secret, and even if the government is acquiring something good and necessary, I don't want public services to be dependent on the generosity of some random dude without public discussion.
- tptacek 9mo agoThe large purchase has nothing to do with the actual problem! In Oak Park, OPPD rolled ALPR cameras out without bending a single rule because Flock structured a pilot deployment for them that came in under the purchase threshold. You aren't OK with that (and I'm not either) and it has nothing to do with the money.
- burkaman 9mo agoOk maybe this is just a semantic issue, but I'm still not understanding your argument that money has nothing to do with it. In your case, instead of having the founder donate the cameras, the company itself essentially donated them, I assume for a limited time. How is that not a money issue? When you said "a minor fracas erupted at the board", why did the board have a say at that point? Was it because the police now had to spend money, triggering public oversight? It seems like the main problem you identified in your original comment is "I do believe you have to run a legit process to get them deployed." What is currently preventing this from happening? The only barrier I'm seeing is Ben Horowitz and Flock finding creative ways to temporarily let their customers not pay for their services.
- lstodd 9mo agoThis is all well and good, but the problem is that those systems leak left and right. No amount of politics can stop that. Back in the day when first ALPRs went into operation (I don't remember, was it 10 or 15 years ago) it took about two weeks for the data to appear on darkweb. Then the same happened to citywide face recognition. The only way to stop abuse is to not collect the data : ban the systems entirely.