4 ms·

The cops are already flying their choppers all over Baltimore and back in order to keep track of the protests/rioters. This is something a bit more insidious t

The cops are already flying their choppers all over Baltimore and back in order to keep track of the protests/rioters. This is something a bit more insidious than simple crowd/crime spotting for ground units. As the article states, this airplane was likely utilizing a few privacy-smashing technologies such as an aerial Stingray (dirtbox) or an ARGOS camera suite, complete with individual identification and tracking for sustained periods of time. Basically, imagine that airplane having the ability to identify individuals, then track their movements and actions around the city for the duration of its loiter time. Without a warrant. Without any oversight. See the problem?

diminoten2 12y ago
Anything the BPD is doing to circumvent warrants is obviously bad and needs to stop. I'm not arguing they should be allowed to do any of that stuff. What I am saying is there's nothing inherently wrong with arial surveillance, to the point where everyone who works for companies offering such services is "evil".
- ska 12y ago
  I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.
  - diminoten2 12y ago
    Really? That's news to me, I thought the issue primarily revolved around "surveillance".
    - ska 12y ago
      I haven't heard anyone complaining about surveillance limited in scope to something with demonstrable cause. It's warrant-less and widespread data gathering and databases (be they license plates, phone records, image/video or what have you) for speculative use that has people concerned, that I've heard.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Flying in public airspace taking video of public locations is just another GoPro ad though. Except, apparently, when it's the police taking the video (though in fairness, the Supreme Court has restricted what police can look at and what sensors police can use, even from public airspace). But, I've got a good solution: Strap the cameras onto the police officers in the plane and call it "body cameras" and all of a sudden it's 100% kosher progressive again, no?
    - ska 12y ago
      > Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Yes, yes it is. It isn't at all clear that the potential benefits of allowing it outweigh the potential costs.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      I don't see how you can argue you with a straight (or smug, in your case) face that body cameras are the same as unfiltered, mass, indiscriminate and wholesale video recording of an entire metro area. Body cameras are subject to the visual field of the individual police officer. Body cameras are not wide-lens, 360-degree panoramic, 1080p-4k for each 15-30-60 degree sub-field, that can identify hundreds of people in a given frame. If a police officer's body camera has you in focus, then I would say it is reasonable to assume that they are using their discretion in choosing to interact with you. The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP. (Cue an argument stating that, "Well, the operator of the drone is using their discretion!" Can the operator of the drone put forth a reasonable suspicion for all that they are recording information on?)
      - mpyne 12y ago
        > The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP Which is nice, but aerial surveillance of that sort can be done by the local TV news station, or a local resident getting their general aviation training. Arguing the police should not have extra surveillance powers certainly makes sense, but arguing the police cannot do something that anyone else in the public can do is where you start to lose the plot.

diminoten2 12y ago

Anything the BPD is doing to circumvent warrants is obviously bad and needs to stop. I'm not arguing they should be allowed to do any of that stuff. What I am saying is there's nothing inherently wrong with arial surveillance, to the point where everyone who works for companies offering such services is "evil".

ska 12y ago
I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.
- diminoten2 12y ago
  Really? That's news to me, I thought the issue primarily revolved around "surveillance".
  - ska 12y ago
    I haven't heard anyone complaining about surveillance limited in scope to something with demonstrable cause. It's warrant-less and widespread data gathering and databases (be they license plates, phone records, image/video or what have you) for speculative use that has people concerned, that I've heard.
- mpyne 12y ago
  Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Flying in public airspace taking video of public locations is just another GoPro ad though. Except, apparently, when it's the police taking the video (though in fairness, the Supreme Court has restricted what police can look at and what sensors police can use, even from public airspace). But, I've got a good solution: Strap the cameras onto the police officers in the plane and call it "body cameras" and all of a sudden it's 100% kosher progressive again, no?
  - ska 12y ago
    > Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Yes, yes it is. It isn't at all clear that the potential benefits of allowing it outweigh the potential costs.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    I don't see how you can argue you with a straight (or smug, in your case) face that body cameras are the same as unfiltered, mass, indiscriminate and wholesale video recording of an entire metro area. Body cameras are subject to the visual field of the individual police officer. Body cameras are not wide-lens, 360-degree panoramic, 1080p-4k for each 15-30-60 degree sub-field, that can identify hundreds of people in a given frame. If a police officer's body camera has you in focus, then I would say it is reasonable to assume that they are using their discretion in choosing to interact with you. The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP. (Cue an argument stating that, "Well, the operator of the drone is using their discretion!" Can the operator of the drone put forth a reasonable suspicion for all that they are recording information on?)
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP Which is nice, but aerial surveillance of that sort can be done by the local TV news station, or a local resident getting their general aviation training. Arguing the police should not have extra surveillance powers certainly makes sense, but arguing the police cannot do something that anyone else in the public can do is where you start to lose the plot.