5 ms·

The quickest way to get dragnet surveillance banned would be for citizens to collaborate and create a massive publicly-available surveillance network.

sicktriple 28d ago
Yes. Once the application of force happens outside the state's monopoly, they'll shut that shit down so fast.
- bilbo0s 28d ago
  I loathe surveillance networks. As much as I loathe them, I'm sadly forced to concede that probably citizens setting up a trivially join-able, anonymous, open source surveillance network is probably the only way to get the powerful to think about what they're doing. Every door man, every hotel employee, every uber driver, every concert-goer, every grocery shopper, every student, and on and on and on. Anonymously streaming their encrypted feeds. Have them turn their cameras onto the street. Especially, say, in front of hotels or at certain restaurants and resorts. Ohhh, and at convention centers as well. Just to show it can pick out subjects at busy places and track them around any city reliably. Naturally, we'd need some sample facial recognition queries just to show how to use the system. We could start with, say, public figures like Representatives, and Senators? And just to prove it works for less famous people, maybe we could have some example names of regular, everyday employees. Like employees at, I don't know?? Palantir, Flock and Clearview maybe? Just to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of public surveillance networks.
- deltoidmaximus 28d ago
  I guess I'm more cynical at this point. This isn't the 1970s when a congressman freaked out that his video rental history might leak and passed a law making them private for everyone as cover. They've evolved beyond that. They'll pass a law banning it for individuals but leaving a loophole for themselves. Like how Chat Control always contains a provision so that officials messages aren't a part of the dragnet.
WaitWaitWha 28d ago
... of politicians. Because they are the ones who could write the laws to ban privacy invasive solutions.
arealaccount 28d ago
Good luck getting permits to install your citizen flock in public areas.
- 15155 28d ago
  Enough private businesses abut major thoroughfares that this is a non-issue.
DrScientist 28d ago
It's legal to film publically - what's not necessarily legal is what you then do with that. There are already precedents - for example it's legal to film ICE agents in public spaces, it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public. The law is asymmetric here because the police have powers reserved for themselves to stop vigilantism. Perhaps an interesting angle here would be if you can make the case that companies like flock are involved in harressment themselves...
- hilariously 28d ago
  It's legal for ICE to kill you in the street, lie about what you were doing, and nothing will happen to them.
- 15155 28d ago
  > it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast scenario, without identifying their profession in context, there's arguably no crime here. There's certainly no crime to broadcast that you've seen their license plates with no association with their names (the statute doesn't cover that.) > Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public. What are you talking about? This is most certainly legally false in the United States. If you are incorrect about someone you might be found against for libel, but there's no crime here. This is basic First Amendment activity. Have you never watched the news or read a newspaper? Allegations are part and parcel. These are also entirely the wrong analogies. Both of these are highly individualized scenarios that are not akin to Flock. "Public Flock" is more like a public traffic cam that anyone can view, and these already exist without issue.
  - DrScientist 28d ago
    I'm trying to distinguish the collection of information from the use. Collection is legal - however there is no point to collecting it if you can't actually use it for anything. For example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-prosecutors-charge-3-activists-with-doxing-of-ice-agent-in-los-angeles https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-prosecutors-char... or https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-pleads-guilty-doxing-ice-lawyer https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-pleads...

sicktriple 28d ago

Yes. Once the application of force happens outside the state's monopoly, they'll shut that shit down so fast.

bilbo0s 28d ago
I loathe surveillance networks. As much as I loathe them, I'm sadly forced to concede that probably citizens setting up a trivially join-able, anonymous, open source surveillance network is probably the only way to get the powerful to think about what they're doing. Every door man, every hotel employee, every uber driver, every concert-goer, every grocery shopper, every student, and on and on and on. Anonymously streaming their encrypted feeds. Have them turn their cameras onto the street. Especially, say, in front of hotels or at certain restaurants and resorts. Ohhh, and at convention centers as well. Just to show it can pick out subjects at busy places and track them around any city reliably. Naturally, we'd need some sample facial recognition queries just to show how to use the system. We could start with, say, public figures like Representatives, and Senators? And just to prove it works for less famous people, maybe we could have some example names of regular, everyday employees. Like employees at, I don't know?? Palantir, Flock and Clearview maybe? Just to demonstrate the value and effectiveness of public surveillance networks.
deltoidmaximus 28d ago
I guess I'm more cynical at this point. This isn't the 1970s when a congressman freaked out that his video rental history might leak and passed a law making them private for everyone as cover. They've evolved beyond that. They'll pass a law banning it for individuals but leaving a loophole for themselves. Like how Chat Control always contains a provision so that officials messages aren't a part of the dragnet.

WaitWaitWha 28d ago

... of politicians. Because they are the ones who could write the laws to ban privacy invasive solutions.

arealaccount 28d ago

Good luck getting permits to install your citizen flock in public areas.

15155 28d ago
Enough private businesses abut major thoroughfares that this is a non-issue.

DrScientist 28d ago

It's legal to film publically - what's not necessarily legal is what you then do with that. There are already precedents - for example it's legal to film ICE agents in public spaces, it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public. The law is asymmetric here because the police have powers reserved for themselves to stop vigilantism. Perhaps an interesting angle here would be if you can make the case that companies like flock are involved in harressment themselves...

hilariously 28d ago
It's legal for ICE to kill you in the street, lie about what you were doing, and nothing will happen to them.
15155 28d ago
> it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast scenario, without identifying their profession in context, there's arguably no crime here. There's certainly no crime to broadcast that you've seen their license plates with no association with their names (the statute doesn't cover that.) > Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public. What are you talking about? This is most certainly legally false in the United States. If you are incorrect about someone you might be found against for libel, but there's no crime here. This is basic First Amendment activity. Have you never watched the news or read a newspaper? Allegations are part and parcel. These are also entirely the wrong analogies. Both of these are highly individualized scenarios that are not akin to Flock. "Public Flock" is more like a public traffic cam that anyone can view, and these already exist without issue.
- DrScientist 28d ago
  I'm trying to distinguish the collection of information from the use. Collection is legal - however there is no point to collecting it if you can't actually use it for anything. For example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-prosecutors-charge-3-activists-with-doxing-of-ice-agent-in-los-angeles https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-prosecutors-char... or https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-pleads-guilty-doxing-ice-lawyer https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-pleads...