4 ms·

>Exposes reality of urban surveillance Sounds like they're saying we should be appalled by this usage of drones... IDK, until we have some proof of an truly in

>Exposes reality of urban surveillance Sounds like they're saying we should be appalled by this usage of drones... IDK, until we have some proof of an truly innocent (found by a court) or no reason to be suspected person (eg profiled, misidentified) having a bad outcome (such as arrest and long detention) without recourse (sue the crap out of the city, dept, or state) ... This article basically reads as "Drones help police apprehend a man involved with auto theft" ... The only "news" here (no shocker) is that the PD is somewhat ignorant on how to handle these new technologies securely. They need to go out on the open market and hire some of the best and brightest security folks displaced by Mythos (that's a joke), and secure their stuff with the basics.

pluralmonad 3mo ago
There will always be those who make excuses for the panopticon. Is yours that reducing auto theft is worth the tradeoffs?
- maerF0x0 3mo ago
  AFAIK there is no right to privacy in public, no? What I don't care so much about the data collection as I do about how it's used. Its not that the NSA surveils that bugs me. It's that they use kangaroo courts, "asdfasdfasdf" as the search reason field, that they cyber stalk girlfriends, or view camera devices to see people in state of undress (illegally and unethically). In this case we have an example of police using the devices, for a very legitimate usecase, more or less in an excellent manner (save for not properly securing the footage).
  - infecto 3mo ago
    +1. I think having cameras is good. In this case these are active calls and it’s great for all parties. How it’s used after the fact is what matters imo. I could even get comfortable with tech like Flock if it was not so ripe for abuse.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Civilized countries do have limited rights to privacy in public. For example, it may be illegal to publish a photograph of a person without their consent.
    - maxlybbert 3mo ago
      For the record, most states have publicity rights (with exceptions) so that publishing a photo may still require somebody’s permission. But the police don’t need a warrant to follow me in public, and even take pictures that they have no intention of publishing.
  - nozzlegear 3mo ago
    > Its not that the NSA surveils that bugs me. It's that they use kangaroo courts, "asdfasdfasdf" as the search reason field, that they cyber stalk girlfriends, or view camera devices to see people in state of undress (illegally and unethically). The police are doing these things too (stalking girlfriends, viewing cameras, following people). > In this case we have an example of police using the devices, for a very legitimate usecase, more or less in an excellent manner (save for not properly securing the footage). The article lists several cases where they weren't being used in an "excellent manner." They deployed drones to spy on some guy listening to music on his roof, and used drones to follow two "suspicious individuals" who were just driving to a basketball court. Another instance had drones hovering around outside an apartment building's windows while police were apparently inside. The department's drone use policy says that footage should only be recorded when the drone is at the scene to minimize the exposure of people unrelated to the investigation, but the investigators found that the drones are recording constantly, from takeoff to landing, and capturing everyone and their dog in between. And these are just the instances the investigators were able to find, on the five drones that had a public link to their footage. Footage that only dates back six months. How many more drones does SFPD have that weren't included in the archive? How many more unexcellent uses did the investigators miss because the footage expired?
  - pluralmonad 3mo ago
    Not being invisible in public is different than being continually monitored, analyzed, and cataloged. The "no expectation of privacy in public" argument seems in bad faith to me since it ignores this vast difference.
- infecto 3mo ago
  I think there is a valid discussion for devices like Flock. The CEO is a detriment to their company and the lack of police guardrails and auditing make it ripe for abuse. Having a camera in the sky for police calls does not sound like a bad idea and actually good for all parties. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. SFPD only uses these for active calls. It’s no different imo than a human cop chasing down a suspect for a call.
normalaccess 3mo ago
Classic example of the Nothing to hide argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
- maerF0x0 3mo ago
  nah, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is IMO until the police have something to hide (besides their crappy securing of the usage) It's not really a news piece. If we had a story of a Police officer using the drone to follow his dominos order, or his ex-girlfriend -- thatd be a story about abuse of power and quite newsworthy.
  - johnduhart 3mo ago
    https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-met-on-a-tv-set-after-surveilling-her-with-a-license-plate-reader/ https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-... So do we need to wait for abuse with this specific piece of technology in order to be concerned?
    - maerF0x0 3mo ago
      we don't have to wait for one. But anti-corruption practices like watch dogs / transparency et al are the next steps before jumping to conclusions. Like IMO the real recourse is to come down hard on the abuses of power, and that includes things like getting Citizens united taken down so that police union(s) are not so powerful etc. I'm generally more interested in root causes than pruning the leaves. Which I realize often is not the "pragmatic" choice.
  - cocacola1 3mo ago
    They already do use tech to spy on exes, though Police Officer Accused of Tracking Partner Using License Plate Reader: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-officer-charged-flock-camera.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-offic...
- tim-tday 3mo ago

pluralmonad 3mo ago

There will always be those who make excuses for the panopticon. Is yours that reducing auto theft is worth the tradeoffs?

maerF0x0 3mo ago
AFAIK there is no right to privacy in public, no? What I don't care so much about the data collection as I do about how it's used. Its not that the NSA surveils that bugs me. It's that they use kangaroo courts, "asdfasdfasdf" as the search reason field, that they cyber stalk girlfriends, or view camera devices to see people in state of undress (illegally and unethically). In this case we have an example of police using the devices, for a very legitimate usecase, more or less in an excellent manner (save for not properly securing the footage).
- infecto 3mo ago
  +1. I think having cameras is good. In this case these are active calls and it’s great for all parties. How it’s used after the fact is what matters imo. I could even get comfortable with tech like Flock if it was not so ripe for abuse.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Civilized countries do have limited rights to privacy in public. For example, it may be illegal to publish a photograph of a person without their consent.
  - maxlybbert 3mo ago
    For the record, most states have publicity rights (with exceptions) so that publishing a photo may still require somebody’s permission. But the police don’t need a warrant to follow me in public, and even take pictures that they have no intention of publishing.
- nozzlegear 3mo ago
  > Its not that the NSA surveils that bugs me. It's that they use kangaroo courts, "asdfasdfasdf" as the search reason field, that they cyber stalk girlfriends, or view camera devices to see people in state of undress (illegally and unethically). The police are doing these things too (stalking girlfriends, viewing cameras, following people). > In this case we have an example of police using the devices, for a very legitimate usecase, more or less in an excellent manner (save for not properly securing the footage). The article lists several cases where they weren't being used in an "excellent manner." They deployed drones to spy on some guy listening to music on his roof, and used drones to follow two "suspicious individuals" who were just driving to a basketball court. Another instance had drones hovering around outside an apartment building's windows while police were apparently inside. The department's drone use policy says that footage should only be recorded when the drone is at the scene to minimize the exposure of people unrelated to the investigation, but the investigators found that the drones are recording constantly, from takeoff to landing, and capturing everyone and their dog in between. And these are just the instances the investigators were able to find, on the five drones that had a public link to their footage. Footage that only dates back six months. How many more drones does SFPD have that weren't included in the archive? How many more unexcellent uses did the investigators miss because the footage expired?
- pluralmonad 3mo ago
  Not being invisible in public is different than being continually monitored, analyzed, and cataloged. The "no expectation of privacy in public" argument seems in bad faith to me since it ignores this vast difference.
infecto 3mo ago
I think there is a valid discussion for devices like Flock. The CEO is a detriment to their company and the lack of police guardrails and auditing make it ripe for abuse. Having a camera in the sky for police calls does not sound like a bad idea and actually good for all parties. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. SFPD only uses these for active calls. It’s no different imo than a human cop chasing down a suspect for a call.

normalaccess 3mo ago

Classic example of the Nothing to hide argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

maerF0x0 3mo ago
nah, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is IMO until the police have something to hide (besides their crappy securing of the usage) It's not really a news piece. If we had a story of a Police officer using the drone to follow his dominos order, or his ex-girlfriend -- thatd be a story about abuse of power and quite newsworthy.
- johnduhart 3mo ago
  https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-met-on-a-tv-set-after-surveilling-her-with-a-license-plate-reader/ https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-... So do we need to wait for abuse with this specific piece of technology in order to be concerned?
  - maerF0x0 3mo ago
    we don't have to wait for one. But anti-corruption practices like watch dogs / transparency et al are the next steps before jumping to conclusions. Like IMO the real recourse is to come down hard on the abuses of power, and that includes things like getting Citizens united taken down so that police union(s) are not so powerful etc. I'm generally more interested in root causes than pruning the leaves. Which I realize often is not the "pragmatic" choice.
- cocacola1 3mo ago
  They already do use tech to spy on exes, though Police Officer Accused of Tracking Partner Using License Plate Reader: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-officer-charged-flock-camera.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-offic...
tim-tday 3mo ago