Hacker News Reader

Comment by pudgywalsh | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is exactly the kind of irrational person who could do so.

A person with a Ford can do all the things car owners can do. But very few people are trusted with access to ALPR cameras.

So: I disagree.

I have no qualms with New Bedford and I'm sure it has lots of, or even mostly, upright police officers who follow the law.

The world is full of and depends on trusted people. You're attacking technology and tools rather than a person that abused their trust to the community.

New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.

I am not attacking tools or people. This article and my statements aren't attacks. The article is an (alleged) fact, and mine are opinions.

I didn't bring up New Bedford.

I agree trust is good. I also believe Flock has implemented some auditing tool to flag frivolous searches which is why these cases are popping up.

I am not against trust, but verifying those who we trust are trustworthy is important, I think.

I'm using it as a literary device and I think you're reading my post too literally.

If we assume surveillance tools will be use inappropriately, that alone is not justification to do away with it.

As with nearly all tools comes great responsibility.

The same argument can be made for police carrying weapons.

Some places like the UK deny the police weapons but have surveillance up the ass.

Widespread indiscriminate surveillance tools are inappropriate whether they are misused by users or not.

Some places like America give every cop a gun but fight against widespread surveillance.

The police should not have either.

There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’

If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed?

As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.

No need to outlaw the device.

If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning.

Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking.

There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases.

Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.

I think even the most ardent supporter of CCTV or Flock or whatever would agree that misuse should be treated harshly. Zero difference between Flock and any number of investigative powers afforded to the government, many without a warrant. Misuse by an officer should be very heavily punished.

I would question why individual police officers would be able to plant pucks administered by the agency and track using (a combination of third-party and) agency infrastructure at will without oversight and properly reviewed papertrail.

Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.

If you do this as an individual, this could get you anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony in some states. If you're a cop and do it, it counts as a 4th amendment search.

Neither "make the device" illegal, but they do make using them for the designed purpose illegal. In the same way owning a sawzall is legal, but using one to cut down all flock cameras in your town is illegal. As it stands, they're about $100 on Amazon with several options to choose from.

If all people had to have gps trackers installed on their cars and that data was easily accessible to cops, yeah I would demand they be outlawed.

A more relevant question is why does some knuckle dragging street pig have access to surveillance tech? This should be regulated exactly the same as wiretapping--specific reasons, specific cases, specific authorization, etc. It should not have been possible for this piece of shit to access the system at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com