4 ms·

Police already don’t need warrants to gather video footage from homes and businesses. It certainly isn’t ineffective or else they wouldn’t do it, but everybody

Police already don’t need warrants to gather video footage from homes and businesses. It certainly isn’t ineffective or else they wouldn’t do it, but everybody knows how effective video footage is. The difference for most does seem to be that it doesn’t cost man hours. We have had cities in the USA with 10k+ cameras in public spaces for years now without much fanfare.

WarmWash 2mo ago
They definitely need warrants, but 99% of the time, people/businesses voluntarily hand it over. In fact they do it enthusiastically and even bring it to police without them even asking. "We believe your camera captured the guy who robbed your neighbor, can we see the footage". Virtually everyone says yes to this.
cmiles8 2mo ago
They 100% need a warrant if the owner of such footage doesn’t want to voluntarily hand it over. Most people generally voluntarily help out when it’s clear the footage is of value, often calling the police proactively to hand over footage. But if they don’t want to release the footage then they’re under no obligation to do so without a court order.
- veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
  They ask and everybody turns the footage over. They need nothing at all to ask for the footage, it just takes a large amount of man hours and ends up producing grainy, low-res footage. Everybody knows how important video footage is, so the real issue does seem to be that Flock makes it too easy?
smt88 2mo ago
> everybody knows how effective video footage is There's no evidence that mass video surveillance, Ring cameras, etc. are leading to higher clearance rates of serious crimes. > We have had cities in the USA with 10k+ cameras in public spaces for years now without much fanfare. And if the data from those cameras were processed to allow me to type someone's name into the search and then track their every movement, there would be a lot of fanfare. Palantir is probably building that, but it doesn't seem widespread yet. But as of now, the directionality is reversed. With regular video, we know a crime happened and expand our search from there to find a suspect. It's not invading a specific person's privacy. With Flock, we have a suspect and want to retroactively stalk that person. We don't know if that person had anything to do with any crime yet, and we're invading their privacy.
- veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
  I have never heard anyone try and argue that video evidence is not effective. That’s a pretty big stretch. There is nothing reversed with Flock. There is a crime scene, they see who was entering or leaving and work from there. Without plate readers it takes a team of people many hours, that’s the difference. You can’t know who had anything to do with the crime without investigating, that’s the definition of the word! > … we're invading their privacy Who expects privacy driving on public roads? In any sort of developed area you are driving past cameras on every single street. Every Uber has a dash cam, the Teslas are recording (sometimes?), every police car has a camera, etc.
  - TaLiTr 2mo ago
    Is it OK to install a GPS tracker on your car if you only drive on public roads? You seem to think that would not compromise your privacy in any way.
    - veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
      Every car I have owned in the last decade has a GPS tracker built in and I carry one in my pocket and on my wrist. I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker!
      - TaLiTr 2mo ago
        > I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker! Interesting how you reframe that, because the police would absolutely need a warrant to put a GPS tracker in your car. This kinda proves everyone's point about this sort of thing, an officer following you is clearly different from the omnipresent surveillance dragnet enabled by Flock cameras.
        veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
        Yeah legally there might be a difference, not my area. The question was whether I’d be fine with a GPS tracker and the answer is I have opted in already with numerous GPS tracking devices, both in my car and on my person. I don’t believe for one second that someone against cameras would be okay with a personal police shadow everywhere even if the Supreme Court has okayed that.

WarmWash 2mo ago

They definitely need warrants, but 99% of the time, people/businesses voluntarily hand it over. In fact they do it enthusiastically and even bring it to police without them even asking. "We believe your camera captured the guy who robbed your neighbor, can we see the footage". Virtually everyone says yes to this.

cmiles8 2mo ago

They 100% need a warrant if the owner of such footage doesn’t want to voluntarily hand it over. Most people generally voluntarily help out when it’s clear the footage is of value, often calling the police proactively to hand over footage. But if they don’t want to release the footage then they’re under no obligation to do so without a court order.

veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
They ask and everybody turns the footage over. They need nothing at all to ask for the footage, it just takes a large amount of man hours and ends up producing grainy, low-res footage. Everybody knows how important video footage is, so the real issue does seem to be that Flock makes it too easy?

smt88 2mo ago

> everybody knows how effective video footage is There's no evidence that mass video surveillance, Ring cameras, etc. are leading to higher clearance rates of serious crimes. > We have had cities in the USA with 10k+ cameras in public spaces for years now without much fanfare. And if the data from those cameras were processed to allow me to type someone's name into the search and then track their every movement, there would be a lot of fanfare. Palantir is probably building that, but it doesn't seem widespread yet. But as of now, the directionality is reversed. With regular video, we know a crime happened and expand our search from there to find a suspect. It's not invading a specific person's privacy. With Flock, we have a suspect and want to retroactively stalk that person. We don't know if that person had anything to do with any crime yet, and we're invading their privacy.

veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
I have never heard anyone try and argue that video evidence is not effective. That’s a pretty big stretch. There is nothing reversed with Flock. There is a crime scene, they see who was entering or leaving and work from there. Without plate readers it takes a team of people many hours, that’s the difference. You can’t know who had anything to do with the crime without investigating, that’s the definition of the word! > … we're invading their privacy Who expects privacy driving on public roads? In any sort of developed area you are driving past cameras on every single street. Every Uber has a dash cam, the Teslas are recording (sometimes?), every police car has a camera, etc.
- TaLiTr 2mo ago
  Is it OK to install a GPS tracker on your car if you only drive on public roads? You seem to think that would not compromise your privacy in any way.
  - veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
    Every car I have owned in the last decade has a GPS tracker built in and I carry one in my pocket and on my wrist. I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker!
    - TaLiTr 2mo ago
      > I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker! Interesting how you reframe that, because the police would absolutely need a warrant to put a GPS tracker in your car. This kinda proves everyone's point about this sort of thing, an officer following you is clearly different from the omnipresent surveillance dragnet enabled by Flock cameras.
      - veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
        Yeah legally there might be a difference, not my area. The question was whether I’d be fine with a GPS tracker and the answer is I have opted in already with numerous GPS tracking devices, both in my car and on my person. I don’t believe for one second that someone against cameras would be okay with a personal police shadow everywhere even if the Supreme Court has okayed that.