4 ms·

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.

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.