4 ms·

Missouri governor orders guardrails on Flock cameras and ALPRs

49 points by lenerdenator 17d ago

nemomarx 17d ago
This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.
- jfengel 17d ago
  The fact that it came down to a governor to set these standards means it's going to be subject to even more abuse. It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security. We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.
  - s1artibartfast 17d ago
    How was it to flock to create the laws? They looked at them and figured out it was legal.
- tiahura 17d ago
  When I recognize someone at the mall, how long should I be able to remember that?
  - gumby271 17d ago
    10 days, then we come after you with a big cartoon mallet to make you forget.
  - iamnothere 17d ago
    As long as you want. What should be illegal is hiring a bunch of people to follow everyone around and share notes. Willfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
    - tiahura 17d ago
      So scale is the determinative factor? How many mean things should people be allowed to say about the president before you deem it excessive?
      - iamnothere 16d ago
        If you’re making a constitutional argument here, regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional. If I’m hiring a network of people to follow you around and make notes about you, that’s clearly commercial, and it’s going to cross state lines. Especially if I am myself being hired to hire those people, by people in all states, targeting people in all states. Regulation of speech is plainly unconstitutional. Regulation of commercial stalking may involve speech, but a balancing test would likely find that it’s primarily a question of commerce. The scale argument is the justification for creating the law in the first place, not what makes it legal or illegal. Yes, most people do think that scale makes things worse due to the increased effects. Mass murder is worse than regular murder, mass dumping is worse than throwing a single battery into a lake, etc. That’s why laws often take scale into account or create different offenses specifically based on scale.
petcat 17d ago
Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
- wiskinator 17d ago
  should also mandate that the license plate data that constitutes a 'hit' must be sent and stored at rest encrypted so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for.
  - JumpCrisscross 17d ago
    > so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
  - daeken 17d ago
    Even better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
- JumpCrisscross 17d ago
  Huh https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/new-hampshire-traffic-camera-tickets/ https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/...
- DaSHacka 17d ago
  Neat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong. All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]
Cider9986 17d ago
We don't need mass surveillance with guardrails, we need no mass surveillance. This is good, though, unless it prevents getting rid of mass surveillance.
FlockIsYC 17d ago
[dead]
fortran77 17d ago
Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.
- petcat 17d ago
  seems like a troll comment baiting people to shit on Missouri for some reason
- iAMkenough 17d ago
  I think everyone you’re recording without consent would disagree with you. Might even be upset with you. How have you stopped crime and corruption by recording people without their knowledge?
- quickthrowman 17d ago
  > The order directs the Missouri Department of Public Safety to create safeguards for state agencies and state-funded law enforcement departments using the automatic license plate readers. There’s no restrictions on private ALPRs in MO resulting from this executive order. An executive order is a directive for government agencies under the executive branch, not private organizations. It’s against the rules to ask if you read the article, so I won’t do that.
  - fortran77 16d ago
    I read the article and he's requesting that people follow these guidelines, and asked the State Legislature to enact laws. I won't ask if you read the article.
- lenerdenator 17d ago
  Depending upon where, exactly, you moved to in Missouri, I don't think you'll necessarily see the drop in crime and corruption you might have hoped for. And I say this as a life-long Missouri resident and Mizzou grad.
calvinmorrison 17d ago
fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.
- pesus 17d ago
  Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
- iamnothere 17d ago
  Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications. It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.
- iAMkenough 17d ago
  ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”
- internet101010 17d ago
  The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.
- dghlsakjg 17d ago
iamnothere 17d ago
Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock. P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
fred_is_fred 17d ago
"Kehoe encouraged local agencies to voluntarily commit to those practices when possible under existing contracts and laws". So in other words, nothing happened.
lenerdenator 17d ago
OP here. Wondering why this was changed to the St. Louis Public Radio link over the Kansas City one.

49 points by lenerdenator 17d ago

This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.

jfengel 17d ago
The fact that it came down to a governor to set these standards means it's going to be subject to even more abuse. It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security. We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.
- s1artibartfast 17d ago
  How was it to flock to create the laws? They looked at them and figured out it was legal.
tiahura 17d ago
When I recognize someone at the mall, how long should I be able to remember that?
- gumby271 17d ago
  10 days, then we come after you with a big cartoon mallet to make you forget.
- iamnothere 17d ago
  As long as you want. What should be illegal is hiring a bunch of people to follow everyone around and share notes. Willfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
  - tiahura 17d ago
    So scale is the determinative factor? How many mean things should people be allowed to say about the president before you deem it excessive?
    - iamnothere 16d ago
      If you’re making a constitutional argument here, regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional. If I’m hiring a network of people to follow you around and make notes about you, that’s clearly commercial, and it’s going to cross state lines. Especially if I am myself being hired to hire those people, by people in all states, targeting people in all states. Regulation of speech is plainly unconstitutional. Regulation of commercial stalking may involve speech, but a balancing test would likely find that it’s primarily a question of commerce. The scale argument is the justification for creating the law in the first place, not what makes it legal or illegal. Yes, most people do think that scale makes things worse due to the increased effects. Mass murder is worse than regular murder, mass dumping is worse than throwing a single battery into a lake, etc. That’s why laws often take scale into account or create different offenses specifically based on scale.

petcat 17d ago

Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.

wiskinator 17d ago
should also mandate that the license plate data that constitutes a 'hit' must be sent and stored at rest encrypted so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for.
- JumpCrisscross 17d ago
  > so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
- daeken 17d ago
  Even better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
JumpCrisscross 17d ago
Huh https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/new-hampshire-traffic-camera-tickets/ https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/...
DaSHacka 17d ago
Neat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong. All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.

deleted 17d ago

[deleted]

Cider9986 17d ago

We don't need mass surveillance with guardrails, we need no mass surveillance. This is good, though, unless it prevents getting rid of mass surveillance.

FlockIsYC 17d ago

[dead]

fortran77 17d ago

Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.

petcat 17d ago
seems like a troll comment baiting people to shit on Missouri for some reason
iAMkenough 17d ago
I think everyone you’re recording without consent would disagree with you. Might even be upset with you. How have you stopped crime and corruption by recording people without their knowledge?
quickthrowman 17d ago
> The order directs the Missouri Department of Public Safety to create safeguards for state agencies and state-funded law enforcement departments using the automatic license plate readers. There’s no restrictions on private ALPRs in MO resulting from this executive order. An executive order is a directive for government agencies under the executive branch, not private organizations. It’s against the rules to ask if you read the article, so I won’t do that.
- fortran77 16d ago
  I read the article and he's requesting that people follow these guidelines, and asked the State Legislature to enact laws. I won't ask if you read the article.
lenerdenator 17d ago
Depending upon where, exactly, you moved to in Missouri, I don't think you'll necessarily see the drop in crime and corruption you might have hoped for. And I say this as a life-long Missouri resident and Mizzou grad.

calvinmorrison 17d ago

fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.

pesus 17d ago
Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
iamnothere 17d ago
Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications. It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.
iAMkenough 17d ago
ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”
internet101010 17d ago
The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.
dghlsakjg 17d ago

iamnothere 17d ago

Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock. P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.

fred_is_fred 17d ago

"Kehoe encouraged local agencies to voluntarily commit to those practices when possible under existing contracts and laws". So in other words, nothing happened.

lenerdenator 17d ago

OP here. Wondering why this was changed to the St. Louis Public Radio link over the Kansas City one.