5 ms·
It's nice to see SFPD taking car break-ins seriously.
by fortran77 3mo ago
It's nice to see SFPD taking car break-ins seriously.
- malfist 3mo ago"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
- Neil44 3mo agoIs it essential liberty to be able to run around doing crime without being surveiled?
- ceejayoz 3mo agoSweet, you've invented pre-crime.
- nozzlegear 3mo agoThis article literally documents several times SFPD used drones to surveil people who weren't committing any crimes. They sent their drones to spy on a guy who was sitting on a roof listening to music, and in another instance they sent drones to follow "suspicious individuals" who were just going to a basketball court to shoot hoops. This is done despite the department's drone policy stating that "drones can only be used to assist with active criminal investigations, to assist with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits, and for training exercises."
- Neil44 3mo agoHow would this be different to following a suspicious car to see what it's intent is?
- nozzlegear 3mo agoA few things IMO: First, the police have a weird habit of determining that black people drive the most suspicious cars. Does this racial profiling extend to their drone use as well? It's clear from the article that the police are using the drones in more situations than just the active investigations that they claim to use them in. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black) Second, if you're being followed by a police car, you know the police car is there. If you're being followed by a drone, you have no idea the drone is there. From the article, the SFPD's drone policy states that operators must only record video once the drone has arrived at the scene, and they must take care not to record individuals unrelated to the active investigation. However, every video had recorded the full takeoff, flight, loitering, return flight and landing – capturing all of the people in SF going about their daily lives. One of the videos showed the drone hovering outside the windows of an apartment building while police schlepped around inside; if I lived there, would I have to worry about a drone appearing outside my window and recording me jerking it in the privacy of my own home? Would I even know it's a police drone, and would I be able to guarantee that the footage was deleted? Third, I can pull over and ask the cop why they're following me, or (more likely) just let them pass. A drone is just going to loiter there, waiting for me to commit whatever crime they think I'm committing. Finally, I hate to invoke the slippery slope argument here, but IMO it's warranted. It's easy to deploy drones wherever you want throughout the city; it's not easy to tail every vehicle waiting for them to commit a crime, just because you find them suspicious. If police find drones to be super effective at tailing all of the people they want to tail, why not buy more drones and just have them hover throughout the city perpetually so there isn't a square inch that goes unwatched?
- malfist 3mo ago> run around doing crime This is begging the question. You have not established that someone being surveilled by drones is engaged in crime. You are absolutely giving up privacy (essential liberty) for security in these cases. Drone cameras don't stop observing just because you're in your backyard, or in your house, or in a private area.
- maerF0x0 3mo ago[flagged]
- infecto 3mo agoWhat liberty does a drone with a camera break? Seems like a nice optimization on police resources.
- adolph 3mo ago'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/158/ https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/158/ See also "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime" The result of overcriminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character. https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Reynolds-113-Colum.-L.-Rev.-Sidebar-102.pdf https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Rey...
- infecto 3mo agoSo these are only being used on active calls. As I have said else where there is a line to draw on active calls and data mining. Having an eye on the sky for an active calls is a pretty nice use of resources and serves all parties. I am a big proponent that body cams should be required to be on for all calls. Not going to dig in either of those links because I suspect they go down the data mining route more like a flock less about active calls. If you would like to point out why these are bad for active calls I am all ears.
- adolph 3mo ago
- tqi 3mo agoYou know he was talking about taxes...