4 ms·
Hey, Chaps! Sorry, I write the way I write. "They" are public bodies operating ALPR devices; in the main, municipal police forces, though obviously other publi
by tptacek 4mo ago
Hey, Chaps! Sorry, I write the way I write.
"They" are public bodies operating ALPR devices; in the main, municipal police forces, though obviously other public bodies (like the Illinois State Police) operate them as well.
The antecedent of the first "that" was "the use of cameras to detect cars with politically disfavored bumper stickers".
I am, yes, dismissing the concern that ALPRs are being used to detect cars with politically unfavorable bumper stickers. I think that if advocates for ending our Flock contract had come to the board table with that concern, rather than the quality of Illinois LEADS, we'd still have the cameras up.
The antecedent of the second "that" is "organizing around easily dismissible movie-plot concerns, like that municipal police are going to dragnet for people with anti-police bumper stickers". Unwinding the sentence, the "big deal" is, as I just said, that centering implausible risks takes real risks out of focus, and gives ammunition for advocates of the cameras --- of which there are a great many --- to push back on efforts to get the cameras down.
I spelled the "deeply problematic" things out elsewhere on the thread.
Feel free to tell me more about what Bloomingdale was doing with their cameras. With no detail, I'm inclined to believe the force simply didn't give a shit about the description field in the search request, because no serious, rigorous effort was made to regulate ALPRs in Bloomingdale, and so there isn't much signal in the logs.
- mmooss 4mo agoMy common experience is that people dismiss these risks without evidence, while I've seen plenty of stories of such things happening in this context and in others. Possibly those stories add up to a lot of anecdotes, but these aren't arguments based on reason or evidence: > easily dismissible movie-plot concerns > implausible risks Those are just words. People who use them, IME, imply their conclusions are already well-established. But they never are. Where is the evidence and argument for these claims?
- chaps 4mo agoPlease actually just look at any audit log and just search yourself. If you think there's no signal, then you clearly haven't looked. If you're going to continue to be lazy in your analysis, then ask a damn LLM. There are 528 agencies who used "suspicious". This is not a bloomingdale problem; it's much larger. Just fucking look, man. select count(*),org_name from flock_bloomingdale where reason = 'suspicious' group by org_name order by count desc; count | org_name -------+-------------------------------------------------- 2678 | Skokie IL PD 828 | Joliet IL PD 678 | Houston TX PD 391 | Fayette County IL SO 309 | Chicago IL PD 256 | Katy TX PD 245 | Itasca IL PD 244 | Steger IL PD 229 | Athens-Clarke County GA PD 215 | Lucas County OH SO 209 | Oak Lawn IL PD 208 | Westmont IL PD 199 | La Salle County IL PD - OLD 194 | Zion IL PD 191 | La Grange Park IL PD 174 | Kenosha County WI SO 173 | Champaign County IL SO 170 | Roselle IL PD 160 | Lake Villa IL PD 152 | Bradley IL PD 152 | Madison County IN SO 143 | LaSalle Co. IL SO - New 135 | Flossmoor IL PD 132 | Sauk Village IL PD 116 | Oak Brook IL PD 106 | Crete IL PD 104 | Villa Park IL PD 101 | Darien IL PD 97 | Cicero IL PD 94 | Wilmington IL PD 89 | Rockford IL PD 80 | Lake County IL SO 80 | Dolton IL PD 79 | Texas Department of Public Safety 76 | Will County IL SO 75 | Naperville IL PD 72 | Minooka IL PD 68 | Hillside IL PD 63 | Carpentersville IL PD 55 | Kent County MI SO 55 | Zanesville OH PD 54 | Winnebago County IL SO 51 | Logan County NE SO 46 | Romeoville IL PD 46 | Menomonee Falls WI PD 46 | Homewood IL PD 44 | Burnham IL PD 44 | Baldwin County GA SO 43 | Venice FL PD 39 | Elmwood Park IL PD 37 | DuPage County IL SO 36 | Greensboro NC PD 34 | Lowndes County GA SO 34 | Henry County GA PD 34 | Tinley Park IL PD
- tptacek 4mo agoYou're going to need to tell me why I'm supposed to be freaked out by the word "suspicious". Further, it is not my claim that (1) ALPRs are not problematic or (2) that they don't direly need more regulation; that's exactly the work I was doing in Oak Park before we cancelled our contract.
- afpx 4mo ago[flagged]
- tptacek 4mo agoOh, no! My reputation!
- afpx 4mo agoI mean as a passive observer it’s a little weird. You’re HN celebrity, aren’t you? It’s definitely an anomaly
- tptacek 4mo agoI don't believe you know anything about me, but do go on.
- afpx 4mo agoYou’ve been an ‘influencer’ here for 25 years. Why so defensive?
- tptacek 4mo agoI don't feel defensive but that is kind of a weird question for you in particular to ask, isn't it? (This site has not existed for 25 years.)
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- afpx 4mo agohmm, ok. kind of odd to put yourself out there for so many years, then be willing to die on this issue, given the political state of things. but, you be you Edit: I can't respond to your reply, but my original question was why is it so important to you, and you didn't answer. But, I guess I'll go back through your comments to find out. Us 'passive observers' are just trying to figure out who's on which team. Feel free to ignore us. No offense intended