6 ms·

> I think it's good that this technology exists (especially if my car were to be stolen), but I don't see how it would be harmful to the public interest to requ

by iak8god 12y ago

> I think it's good that this technology exists (especially if my car were to be stolen), but I don't see how it would be harmful to the public interest to require police to get a warrant before looking me up. The most justified uses for this seem to be those where your car is stolen, or suspected to be involved in a crime, or otherwise of interest for an ongoing investigation. Since there's no reason to store this data indefinitely for any of those uses, it seems like erasing non-matches within 24 hours or so would be a good way to address many of the privacy concerns. On the other hand, if the goal is now to collect as much data as possible about everyone just in case it turns out to be useful later, then things seem to be going according to plan.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Agreed -- non-matches must not be stored indefinitely. 24 hours might be a bit on the short side; I could see letting them keep them for 30 days, but no more than that.
kbenson 12y ago
Some crimes aren't even discovered for weeks or months afterwards. For example, a dumped body. There's definitely a trade-off, 24 hours seems too low to me, multiple months too long. 15 to 30 days sounds about right.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  The utility for solving crime is, I think, the wrong metric for deciding what technology police should be allowed to use. Murders would be a lot easier to solve if every person was forced to wear a tracker that reported their location to the police at all times--but we would not stand for such a thing. Why should we accept a lower standard of privacy just because we're driving?
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Because like everything there's a trade-off and it deserves to be carefully examined. I value my privacy, but that doesn't mean it's beyond reproach. If, and I under no illusions as to it being likely, we could reduce certain types of crime by storing this data and making it accessible with a warrant for a specific time frame until it's removed (which is the context this is under, a warrant was specifically mentioned up-thread), then it's worth having that discussion.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading? This thread so far has been entirely about what's the "right amount" of crime to prevent. But if you ask the police how much crime they should prevent and solve, the answer will be "all of it." That's their mission, after all. The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion? If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance? There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.
      - kbenson 12y ago
        > If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading? Privacy. That's what this comment thread was about. The privacy implications of storing this data (csmith). Then, when it would be justified to access it if it IS stored for some reason, for what crimes, and how long it would last to address privacy concerns (iak8god). Then I chimed in with some reasoning as to why a somewhat longer retention period might be warranted, and why. Is it unclear there somewhere exactly what we're discussing? > The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion? Since when is a discussion about one side saying what they want and then it's over? In an effort to solve more crimes, the police would undoubtedly want a lot of access to data that is kept for a long time. But the other side, the public whose information this is gets a say as well. I, for my part, would argue that if this information is even allowed to be gathered, that if police want access to it there should be strict controls and conditions. > There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer. There is an answer, or more accurately, many answers. Civil liberties, preventing corruption, privacy, etc. There's a reason police can't detain you indefinitely without charges, why they can't enter your home without cause, why they can't seize your property without cause (and of course, there are exceptions to these which people take offense to, often rightly). Those all make the job of the police harder, but we've tried to strike a balance. It shifts back and forth over time. > If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance? What, so we don't talk about it? It's not okay to have the conversation because you think the other argument isn't obvious enough? I'm not really sure your point, because to my eyes, this thread is all about balance. It feels like you're just trying to stifle discussion.

by iak8god 12y ago

ScottBurson 12y ago

Agreed -- non-matches must not be stored indefinitely. 24 hours might be a bit on the short side; I could see letting them keep them for 30 days, but no more than that.

kbenson 12y ago

Some crimes aren't even discovered for weeks or months afterwards. For example, a dumped body. There's definitely a trade-off, 24 hours seems too low to me, multiple months too long. 15 to 30 days sounds about right.

snowwrestler 12y ago
The utility for solving crime is, I think, the wrong metric for deciding what technology police should be allowed to use. Murders would be a lot easier to solve if every person was forced to wear a tracker that reported their location to the police at all times--but we would not stand for such a thing. Why should we accept a lower standard of privacy just because we're driving?
- kbenson 12y ago
  Because like everything there's a trade-off and it deserves to be carefully examined. I value my privacy, but that doesn't mean it's beyond reproach. If, and I under no illusions as to it being likely, we could reduce certain types of crime by storing this data and making it accessible with a warrant for a specific time frame until it's removed (which is the context this is under, a warrant was specifically mentioned up-thread), then it's worth having that discussion.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading? This thread so far has been entirely about what's the "right amount" of crime to prevent. But if you ask the police how much crime they should prevent and solve, the answer will be "all of it." That's their mission, after all. The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion? If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance? There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      > If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading? Privacy. That's what this comment thread was about. The privacy implications of storing this data (csmith). Then, when it would be justified to access it if it IS stored for some reason, for what crimes, and how long it would last to address privacy concerns (iak8god). Then I chimed in with some reasoning as to why a somewhat longer retention period might be warranted, and why. Is it unclear there somewhere exactly what we're discussing? > The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion? Since when is a discussion about one side saying what they want and then it's over? In an effort to solve more crimes, the police would undoubtedly want a lot of access to data that is kept for a long time. But the other side, the public whose information this is gets a say as well. I, for my part, would argue that if this information is even allowed to be gathered, that if police want access to it there should be strict controls and conditions. > There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer. There is an answer, or more accurately, many answers. Civil liberties, preventing corruption, privacy, etc. There's a reason police can't detain you indefinitely without charges, why they can't enter your home without cause, why they can't seize your property without cause (and of course, there are exceptions to these which people take offense to, often rightly). Those all make the job of the police harder, but we've tried to strike a balance. It shifts back and forth over time. > If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance? What, so we don't talk about it? It's not okay to have the conversation because you think the other argument isn't obvious enough? I'm not really sure your point, because to my eyes, this thread is all about balance. It feels like you're just trying to stifle discussion.