Hacker News Reader

Why do you think there's necessarily a preemptive blanket ban being asked for? Here is the specific request for relief from the suit itself:

"REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue judgment against Defendants as follows:

a. Declaring that Defendants’ policies and customs described in this Complaint are unlawful and violate the Fourth Amendment (incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution;

b. Permanently enjoining Defendants from operating the Flock Cameras;

c. Ordering Defendants to delete all images, records, and other data generated by the Flock Cameras;

d. Permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, agents, and any others acting on their behalf from using the Flock Cameras to collect images or information without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause;

e. Permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, agents, and any others acting on their behalf from accessing any images, records, or other data generated by the Flock Cameras without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause;

f. Awarding Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, including but not limited to fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

g. Ordering all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled, regardless of whether such relief is demanded in this Complaint."

You could argue that point b is a blanket ban, but in fact it's kinda limited: it asks to prohibit the city from operating the cameras, but says nothing of any other party operating them. All the other points simply ask for the city to be required to obtain a warrant, just like it would have to do under normal circumstances.

The city should be able to put cameras where it sees fit (especially on public property where no one else can). I agree though that the footage should be only accessible with a narrowly definable warrant.

We really don't need this much hand-wringing, the solution seems pretty straightforward.

> As a resident of Oakland, California, I find this kind of technology a decent middle-ground. I'd like to be able to catch a decent percentage of criminals so as to make crime statistically pointless.

That's not at all what's going to happen. I don't think we have reason to believe it's going to significantly reduce crime let alone make it "statistically pointless."

What it will do is, you know, conduct mass surveillance. This technology will support the policing doctrine that everybody is a criminal suspect. That means you are a criminal suspect, and the police will watch you, and if they want to, they'll stop or arrest you for something or other. You don't need to be dangerous to anyone, that's irrelevant. Just vulnerable. And this tech makes you more vulnerable.

Is that a price worth paying for a pipe dream of safety?

There's no reason to give police carte-blanche access. I have no idea why these camera queries aren't being put behind warrant judges.

Just applying the same rules should work if we ignore the "database could be hacked" argument: you can collect the data, but as long as the access control is in the hands of judges, it theoretically achieves the desired criteria.

I think that's totally fine and I'm surprised this isn't being actively considered.

As long as there are enough judges for swift action.

>I'd love for someone to explore expanded "digital" warrant courts and civilian oversight commissions instead of preemptive blanket ban of this technology via lawsuit.

No. Just normal warrants for surveillance like always, and ban "warrantless" subscriptions to data sources that might be used to investigate or prosecute crime.

Here's a New York Times article for today "As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator"

And you want warrantless broad spectrum surveillance to prevent crime.