New calif highway surveillance uses more than cameras | Hacker News Reader

New calif highway surveillance uses more than cameras

mercurynews.com

36 pointsmistrial936 comments

> The highway patrol recently contracted Flock Safety to install the cameras, which appear to use a wide array of high-tech features that go beyond simply reading motorists’ license plates.

The cameras feature “improved vehicle recognition” that allows officers to search for vehicles by several identifying categories, including their “type, make, color, license plate state, missing/covered plates,” as well as bumper stickers, decals and roof racks, according to the governor’s announcement. The camera system also can provide real-time alerts when a vehicle sought by officers is spotted.

Some previous mentions of Flock Safety's camera networks:

[0]: ‘Talon,’ the Nationwide Network of AI-Enabled Surveillance Cameras https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26330370

[1]: AI licenseplate surveillance startup installed 100s of cameras with o permission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39545522

Turns out all Flock needed to do was ask the police for permission, and now they can have ai cameras monitoring the world. The "didn't ask permission" aspect was not at all hard to remedy; the local elements of the state are more than encouraging about AI powered mass surveillance at a very fine fine level.

Will Flock be able to use this data themselves? Will they be allowed to sell this data to others? At what level? How much will they charge me to track a red Nissan with roof racks all day for a day?

Just two weeks ago a federal court gave copsa thumbs up on installing a camera watching someone's home & comings & goings, for 68 days straight. And here the state is watching the entire city at once. The availability of these capabilities is so remarkably high, and it's hard to imagine how democracy gets a say in reconciling these new powers of the state. Meanwhile the courts are happily making more room than ever for the state. https://qz.com/feds-can-film-your-front-porch-without-warran...

> missing/covered plates

Here in CA, I routinely see illegible plates covered with smoky grey plastic.

Don't understand why these apparently are not promptly pulled over by the cops, with the owners fined enough hundreds of dollars to permanently effect better behavior. No high-tech needed.

But then, politicos do love their science fair projects ...

I’ve always wondered that too. A lot of people will claim that “it’s their right” to not be recognized by surveillance and that’s why they use those covers, but seems a lot more likely that they don’t want take responsibility if they get in an accident that they can slip out of without being identified.

I think a lot of drivers view speeding and extending yellow lights as a bit of a cat and mouse game. As Carlin once said “Cop didn’t see it? I didn’t do it.”

Red light and speed cameras give police too much advantage in this “game” so they seek to take their own advantage.

They're also great for running tolls.

I don't feel great about toll roads, personally, but I do feel that if you're using a license plate contraption to dodge tolls, your car should be crushed into a cube while you watch.

I now have a Flock camera at both ends of my street. There is no way for me to come or go from my own house without the government having a record of it.

Unfortunately installing a smoke cover on my plate and waiting to get pulled over and issued a ticket is the only real way to kick off a 4th amendment challenge.

...Or... Do as teenagers and other mis^H^H^H privacy valuing, god fearing, concerned citizens have done.

Go "lose" them.

Assuming you have a mobile device on you, that was already the case, just from location data from ATT/Verizon/Tmobile towers.

That requires a warrant (I'm very familiar with the process to request data from cell carriers). ALPR can be queried at any time because they are government owned cameras.

After Snowden and stuff like this, I assume if the government (at least federal) really wants it, they can procure it. Plus, the location data is probably saved so it’s just a matter of querying a specific phone number to see the whole history.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696222/att-location-dat...

> The suit stems from recent investigations into how AT&T and other wireless carriers share the sensitive data. A New York Times article last year found that law enforcement has used the data to track phones without a court order. In another investigation, published earlier this year, Motherboard was able to pay a bounty hunter $300 to track the location of a phone using the data. Several lawmakers were quick to criticize the companies’ policies following the Motherboard report.

>Several lawmakers were quick to criticize the companies’ policies following the Motherboard report.

You'd think, being lawmakers, they might be able to think of a more effective method to stop the behavior.

But no, apparently nothing can be done. Move along, nothing to see here.

Privacy is a spectrum. The “they already have all my information” seems like avoidance of a complex topic. Just because some people hand over all of their information to social media apps doesn’t mean we should tolerate even more intrusions into our privacy.

Spraypaint on the fixed-position camera lenses

You are already being tracked by your cell phone pings, how is this any different?

You're assuming some things there, which may or may not be true for this person.

Even as a person that doesn't carry a cell phone, it's statistically likely that I'm still trackable (beyond just license plates).

Based on what?

e.g. Gait analysis.

Is that in widespread use in your area?

At most Target and WalMart locations, yes.

k. Sounds like if you're not carrying a mobile phone, you'd have to go out of your way to be tracked then. ;)

Some people will cleverly glue a leaf over 50, 60 or even 80% of the number. How did it get there? I don't know. Must be nature's fault. I'm so sorry officer.

Better yet, there are electromagnetic covers that allow you to drop the "leaf" while you're being pulled over for plausible deniability.

Lot of premeditation there

At least they have plates. I see cars driving plate-free in southern CA on a normal basis.

I’m not sure people appreciate how technologies like this can be abused. It’s not just the cameras, it’s the fusion and analysis of all that data leading to a loss of privacy.

"We wanted to make sure all the work our team had done with the (city’s) privacy commission aligned with what Gov. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta were planning — and they were receptive,” Hanson said."

That's a bit odd, given that Flock specifically markets its nationwide network to LEO agencies - ie you can be in East Nowhere, Iowa and query a plate and see data from the entire network.

Not to mention the government's poor handling of database security. The fusion of your point and mine are scary

The problem in Oakland isn’t a lack of knowing who committed a crime, it’s that the DA isn’t charging anybody with crimes, and letting everybody walk.

She’s also facing a recall, but these cameras solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

“This new camera network will help us stop crime and hold more suspects accountable,” Thao’s statement said.

Indeed, the Mayor wants to hold all suspects accountable. Then the next step is making everybody a suspect.

Very interesting Freudian slip, isn't it?

Suspects or Criminals? Insert Theyre_the_same_picture.jpg meme here.

Reminds me of this https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/surveillance-syste...

Gavin Newsom needs to go down fast. Let's put cameras in his bedroom to keep him honest too. No need to criminalize every single citizen.

They state that the goal is to reduce crime on the freeway. Let's move the problem but monitor everybody.

It has to be palantir behind the analysis software right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com