4 ms·

It's legal for any random citizen to build one of these surveillance networks, right?

tiahura 3mo ago
Only in free countries. Many authoritarian regimes don’t let people take pictures in public.
nilamo 3mo ago
That's a great point. We should build a network that tracks all cops to make sure they don't get up to no good while off duty.
- assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
  Are you one of those guys who hates the cops until you need one? Do you also forget that cops are people, too?
  - microgpt 3mo ago
    I used to hate the cops until I needed one, and then they were horrible to me and didn't solve my problem and actually started a reverse investigation against me for the thing I reported someone else doing, so now I hate the cops even when I need one.
  - Terr_ 3mo ago
    How backwards. Parent poster is talking about treating cops closer to how regular people are being treated. If you're really committed to fairness, you'll take away the off-duty/unofficial privileges and immunities that they have which are not shared with "people too."
- neilv 3mo ago
  The police where I live are generally good, and I imagine that's the case many places. Treating police as the enemy, or a punching bag, is unfair and counterproductive. (I can't speak to any places that might have a lot of corruption or ill intent.) Places that aren't too corrupt, you'd be better off encouraging a partnership among citizens, police, lawmakers, and other officials. Which is how it's supposed to be. Everyone in the government has their respective duties, and they operate within a framework that's ultimately decided by the people. If, for example, police propose certain surveillance, to help keep everyone safe, within their scope, then sometimes someone with different or larger scope might need to say, yes, but there's also these other considerations. Eventually a decision is made by the public or their elected representatives, and everyone nods with respect, and aligns, and continues their respective duties within the frameworks.
  - microgpt 3mo ago
    This wouldn't treat them as the enemy. We'd just track everywhere they go, for their safety. Really, we'd be helping them.
    - antonvs 3mo ago
      Right. After all, surely they have nothing to hide?
  - deaux 3mo ago
    The citizens where I live are generally good, and I image that's the case in many places. Treating them as the enemy, or a punching bag, is unfair and counterproductive.
Manuel_D 3mo ago
Correct, at least in the US you can record people in public pretty much at any time.
- explodes 3mo ago
  An individual setting up a network of 200-400 cameras throughout a city would not be lega because of property usage I would assume. Not necessarily because of the recording. A llone person doing this would definitely raise more eyebrows.
- abalashov 3mo ago
  Yes, but I'm not sure you can catalog all the features of the people you recorded and compile this into a real-time database that can be queried with relatively little oversight. I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect there would be both invasion of privacy (if private) and warrantless search/4th amendment/civil rights concerns (if law enforcement) concerns.
  - Manuel_D 3mo ago
    But nobody is being searched, and nobody is being recorded in private. The police and other organizations are observing what is plainly in public view.

Only in free countries. Many authoritarian regimes don’t let people take pictures in public.

That's a great point. We should build a network that tracks all cops to make sure they don't get up to no good while off duty.

assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
Are you one of those guys who hates the cops until you need one? Do you also forget that cops are people, too?
- microgpt 3mo ago
  I used to hate the cops until I needed one, and then they were horrible to me and didn't solve my problem and actually started a reverse investigation against me for the thing I reported someone else doing, so now I hate the cops even when I need one.
- Terr_ 3mo ago
  How backwards. Parent poster is talking about treating cops closer to how regular people are being treated. If you're really committed to fairness, you'll take away the off-duty/unofficial privileges and immunities that they have which are not shared with "people too."
neilv 3mo ago
The police where I live are generally good, and I imagine that's the case many places. Treating police as the enemy, or a punching bag, is unfair and counterproductive. (I can't speak to any places that might have a lot of corruption or ill intent.) Places that aren't too corrupt, you'd be better off encouraging a partnership among citizens, police, lawmakers, and other officials. Which is how it's supposed to be. Everyone in the government has their respective duties, and they operate within a framework that's ultimately decided by the people. If, for example, police propose certain surveillance, to help keep everyone safe, within their scope, then sometimes someone with different or larger scope might need to say, yes, but there's also these other considerations. Eventually a decision is made by the public or their elected representatives, and everyone nods with respect, and aligns, and continues their respective duties within the frameworks.
- microgpt 3mo ago
  This wouldn't treat them as the enemy. We'd just track everywhere they go, for their safety. Really, we'd be helping them.
  - antonvs 3mo ago
    Right. After all, surely they have nothing to hide?
- deaux 3mo ago
  The citizens where I live are generally good, and I image that's the case in many places. Treating them as the enemy, or a punching bag, is unfair and counterproductive.

Manuel_D 3mo ago

Correct, at least in the US you can record people in public pretty much at any time.

explodes 3mo ago
An individual setting up a network of 200-400 cameras throughout a city would not be lega because of property usage I would assume. Not necessarily because of the recording. A llone person doing this would definitely raise more eyebrows.
abalashov 3mo ago
Yes, but I'm not sure you can catalog all the features of the people you recorded and compile this into a real-time database that can be queried with relatively little oversight. I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect there would be both invasion of privacy (if private) and warrantless search/4th amendment/civil rights concerns (if law enforcement) concerns.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  But nobody is being searched, and nobody is being recorded in private. The police and other organizations are observing what is plainly in public view.