4 ms·

What liberty does a drone with a camera break? Seems like a nice optimization on police resources.

by infecto 3mo ago

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 ago
  So 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
    > So these are only being used on active calls. I see your distinction better now. The Reynolds essay speaks a little more to the issue at hand. Essentially the technology allows for scope creep. Previously the limiting factor for physical police surveillance was officer FTEs, which creates a lower bound for the conditions that predicate an "active call." When this constraint is lifted, then Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”
    - infecto 3mo ago
      Agree, which is why these discussions need to happen. I am a big proponent of this kind of tech but also welcome the discussion to figure out appropriate boundaries.
nozzlegear 3mo ago
If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Fourth Amendment.
- infecto 3mo ago
  Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Does it really matter if it’s a human tracking down a suspect or a drone. If you have any case law that shows general cameras break the 4th I would love to read.
  - ceejayoz 3mo ago
    > Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      Yup I did and it was not clear. I think those two examples are worthy of a discussion on scope creep but not clear policy violations atm. The intent is to be used on active calls which I believe is a great idea. A clear violation would be the drones actively patrolling and identify suspicious behavior. That’s bad and a clear violation of the policy. Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn more about it. This is one of those areas that can be a slippery slope. Look at the UK and the terrible state it’s in. On the flip side I would hope that so long as the guardrails are in place that first response drones can be good for all parties.
      - ceejayoz 3mo ago
        > Please let us know how this violates the 4th. It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
        3mo ago
rangestransform 3mo ago
There should be no optimization on police resources. When Katz v. USA (no expectation of privacy in public) was decided, surveillance was done by an officer who needed to be paid a middle class salary, maybe armed with a camera and a telephoto lens if we’re lucky. The average city police department barely knew what SIGINT meant. Either the laws need to be updated to have equal friction for the police to do surveillance, or we need to physically prevent police from having access to modern surveillance technology.
- infecto 3mo ago
  These drones are “piloted” but it can be in a semiautonomous way. Your argument makes sense for Flock cameras but not for this style of drone. I think first response with a drone to an active call is a great use of resources for all parties. Flock cameras constantly tracking every movement, probably not given the severe lack of audits and guardrails.
  - rangestransform 3mo ago
    It’s still far too scalable compared to what was accessible back then. The police should be handcuffed to paying for a full ass helicopter if they want to do surveillance

What liberty does a drone with a camera break? Seems like a nice optimization on police resources.

by infecto 3mo ago

What liberty does a drone with a camera break? Seems like a nice optimization on police resources.

'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 ago
So 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
  > So these are only being used on active calls. I see your distinction better now. The Reynolds essay speaks a little more to the issue at hand. Essentially the technology allows for scope creep. Previously the limiting factor for physical police surveillance was officer FTEs, which creates a lower bound for the conditions that predicate an "active call." When this constraint is lifted, then Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”
  - infecto 3mo ago
    Agree, which is why these discussions need to happen. I am a big proponent of this kind of tech but also welcome the discussion to figure out appropriate boundaries.

nozzlegear 3mo ago

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Fourth Amendment.

infecto 3mo ago
Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Can you describe how this breaks the 4th? Does it really matter if it’s a human tracking down a suspect or a drone. If you have any case law that shows general cameras break the 4th I would love to read.
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  > Did you read the article… These are being used for active calls only. Did you? The article provides clear counterexamples to that policy.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    Yup I did and it was not clear. I think those two examples are worthy of a discussion on scope creep but not clear policy violations atm. The intent is to be used on active calls which I believe is a great idea. A clear violation would be the drones actively patrolling and identify suspicious behavior. That’s bad and a clear violation of the policy. Please let us know how this violates the 4th. I would love to learn more about it. This is one of those areas that can be a slippery slope. Look at the UK and the terrible state it’s in. On the flip side I would hope that so long as the guardrails are in place that first response drones can be good for all parties.
    - ceejayoz 3mo ago
      > Please let us know how this violates the 4th. It seem awfully similar to the geofence surveillance SCOTUS just said requires a warrant. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
      - 3mo ago

rangestransform 3mo ago

There should be no optimization on police resources. When Katz v. USA (no expectation of privacy in public) was decided, surveillance was done by an officer who needed to be paid a middle class salary, maybe armed with a camera and a telephoto lens if we’re lucky. The average city police department barely knew what SIGINT meant. Either the laws need to be updated to have equal friction for the police to do surveillance, or we need to physically prevent police from having access to modern surveillance technology.

infecto 3mo ago
These drones are “piloted” but it can be in a semiautonomous way. Your argument makes sense for Flock cameras but not for this style of drone. I think first response with a drone to an active call is a great use of resources for all parties. Flock cameras constantly tracking every movement, probably not given the severe lack of audits and guardrails.
- rangestransform 3mo ago
  It’s still far too scalable compared to what was accessible back then. The police should be handcuffed to paying for a full ass helicopter if they want to do surveillance