5 ms·

As someone who strongly opposes flock cameras... This is a huge problem that people will try to sweep under the rug or hand wave away with wording like "It's t

As someone who strongly opposes flock cameras... This is a huge problem that people will try to sweep under the rug or hand wave away with wording like "It's the scale the matters". Ideally, laws need to be written like programs are, where fundamental rules of the system are derived and programmatically put into action. So words like "scale" mean nothing. "I need the variable to go negative when the scale is large". Most programmers here will immediately snag on "scale" not being a hard value. So what we actually need is a redefining of the fundamental rules, and well, that is very challenging to do such that it's still legal to walk around an record everything in public, but not legal to passively record everything in public all the time. How do we solidly and unambiguously differentiate a cops dashcam, from a police camera on a portable base station, from a flock camera on a corner to a private business with a security came to a firestation with a security camera. Legally it's a very challenging problem to create a "programmatic differentiation" from the kind of camera use we want, and the kind we don't want.

nearlyepic 2mo ago
You realize the law can just make shit up, right? It’s very easy to make a law that says “ALPR data needs a warrant” without impacting the ability of people to record in public. You just need to clearly define ALPR, which isn’t hard.
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  You don't even need to define it - you can half-ass it and rely on courts to clarify the edge cases. That's how the vast majority of laws work.
  - nearlyepic 2mo ago
    This is also true, but we’ve seen the problems with that idea put on display pretty prominently, lately.
- WarmWash 2mo ago
  Yeah, but we don't want cameras everywhere, not just auto plate readers. What is the difference between a security camera watching the municipal tools shack entrance and the security camera watching the main road? The ultimate goal is to not have a massive database of everything that happened everywhere going back forever. So it even extends far beyond just reading license plates.
parineum 2mo ago
> Ideally, laws need to be written like programs are, where fundamental rules of the system are derived and programmatically put into action. So words like "scale" mean nothing. > Legally it's a very challenging problem to create a "programmatic differentiation" from the kind of camera use we want, and the kind we don't want. I don't think that's ideal at all. The questions you're asking already have been answered, judges. It's their whole job to understand that scale changes things. I get the instinct to be able to objectively codify things, especially in this community, but the law is based on morality and philosophy. Until someone comes up with a perfect solution to the trolley problem, we need a human in the loop making judgements. More on topic, there's a reason why we have different terms for surveillance and mass surveillance. They feel very different and mass surveillance enables much different behaviors of bad actors.
JK-Swizzle 2mo ago
Looking at the sentiment of those around me about public recordings (in this case it was street photography), I would not be surprised if there was a push soon to ban all public recordings. At least, the sharing or usage of those recordings. It seems many people feel it limits what I would consider "freedom of impermanence", or the concept that as an ordinary individual nearly every action or mistake you make will not considered in your future. I for one would act differently if that were the case. Many vulnerable or stupid moments would not have happened. Many of those moments have allowed me to grow as a person. And this is as a person who has not faced persecution or bias in law enforcement. I do not have a stance on the matter of general recording currently, but know that I would have acted differently if there was a camera around all the time. There goes my first time asking someone out, there goes frying a 5V board with 12V because I thought I knew better, there goes bar karaoke so bad that even the bartender looked pained. But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning, so too goes the joy I captured on a strangers face at seeing a beautiful chandelier, and so too goes the countless photos of nature that happen to have people in the background.
- pseudalopex 2mo ago
  The most private people I know would not ban all public recordings or to share all public recordings. They would ban with some exceptions to share recordings of people without their consent. Some would ban to keep recordings without consent. And they would not ban this if street photographers or so respected other people. > But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning, He would have been there without you seemingly. Everyone who saw him there would have seen him. You meant your recording? > so too goes the joy I captured on a strangers face at seeing a beautiful chandelier, They would have seen the chandelier and felt joy without you seemingly. You meant your recording? Did you ask to send them a copy? Did you ask to keep it? Did you ask to share it? > and so too goes the countless photos of nature that happen to have people in the background. A recording of a person and a recording of nature which happens to have people in the background are different. And some countries understood this when they made their laws.
  - JK-Swizzle 2mo ago

nearlyepic 2mo ago

You realize the law can just make shit up, right? It’s very easy to make a law that says “ALPR data needs a warrant” without impacting the ability of people to record in public. You just need to clearly define ALPR, which isn’t hard.

Xirdus 2mo ago
You don't even need to define it - you can half-ass it and rely on courts to clarify the edge cases. That's how the vast majority of laws work.
- nearlyepic 2mo ago
  This is also true, but we’ve seen the problems with that idea put on display pretty prominently, lately.
WarmWash 2mo ago
Yeah, but we don't want cameras everywhere, not just auto plate readers. What is the difference between a security camera watching the municipal tools shack entrance and the security camera watching the main road? The ultimate goal is to not have a massive database of everything that happened everywhere going back forever. So it even extends far beyond just reading license plates.

parineum 2mo ago

> Ideally, laws need to be written like programs are, where fundamental rules of the system are derived and programmatically put into action. So words like "scale" mean nothing. > Legally it's a very challenging problem to create a "programmatic differentiation" from the kind of camera use we want, and the kind we don't want. I don't think that's ideal at all. The questions you're asking already have been answered, judges. It's their whole job to understand that scale changes things. I get the instinct to be able to objectively codify things, especially in this community, but the law is based on morality and philosophy. Until someone comes up with a perfect solution to the trolley problem, we need a human in the loop making judgements. More on topic, there's a reason why we have different terms for surveillance and mass surveillance. They feel very different and mass surveillance enables much different behaviors of bad actors.

JK-Swizzle 2mo ago

Looking at the sentiment of those around me about public recordings (in this case it was street photography), I would not be surprised if there was a push soon to ban all public recordings. At least, the sharing or usage of those recordings. It seems many people feel it limits what I would consider "freedom of impermanence", or the concept that as an ordinary individual nearly every action or mistake you make will not considered in your future. I for one would act differently if that were the case. Many vulnerable or stupid moments would not have happened. Many of those moments have allowed me to grow as a person. And this is as a person who has not faced persecution or bias in law enforcement. I do not have a stance on the matter of general recording currently, but know that I would have acted differently if there was a camera around all the time. There goes my first time asking someone out, there goes frying a 5V board with 12V because I thought I knew better, there goes bar karaoke so bad that even the bartender looked pained. But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning, so too goes the joy I captured on a strangers face at seeing a beautiful chandelier, and so too goes the countless photos of nature that happen to have people in the background.

pseudalopex 2mo ago
The most private people I know would not ban all public recordings or to share all public recordings. They would ban with some exceptions to share recordings of people without their consent. Some would ban to keep recordings without consent. And they would not ban this if street photographers or so respected other people. > But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning, He would have been there without you seemingly. Everyone who saw him there would have seen him. You meant your recording? > so too goes the joy I captured on a strangers face at seeing a beautiful chandelier, They would have seen the chandelier and felt joy without you seemingly. You meant your recording? Did you ask to send them a copy? Did you ask to keep it? Did you ask to share it? > and so too goes the countless photos of nature that happen to have people in the background. A recording of a person and a recording of nature which happens to have people in the background are different. And some countries understood this when they made their laws.
- JK-Swizzle 2mo ago