1. They don't have access to the data.
2. They don't trust those that do.
3. They don't believe that violations in how it is used will be appropriately punished (article clearly disagrees, citing a study).
4. They believe the Federal government will misuse the data, and there won't be a record of the misuse.
One solution is: Make the data a public good. Instead of trying to ban such things, make the feeds accessible to everyone. It levels the playing field.
Bans aren't really going to work in the long run. I could hook up a camera on my property, facing the street, and record and stream. You can do the same. We can set up a common protocol for all such people to share their streams. Municipalities banning this type of behavior will be as effective as banning piracy.
Will society be better off as a result? I seriously doubt it. Some things will drastically improve. Others will get a lot worse. But it's a likely solution going forward.
People don’t trust the cameras will be used effectively to reduce crime meaningfully, and so there’s no actual benefit to offset the costs.
People, myself included, don’t trust the security implemented to protect here systems from external access or exfiltration. If our government can’t protect its most sensitive systems from breeches by our foreign adversaries and allies, then I have to assume the data will be exploited by criminals and hostile foreign governments. Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
The UK has had mass surveillance cameras for a few decades at this point. However, I'm having trouble finding good studies on its effectiveness. The closest I can find is for one town, of all the crimes that were solved, a third of them involved using the cameras to help in solving them. However, it's not clear how crucial the camera was (i.e. was it a key piece of evidence or merely another piece of evidence on top of what they already had).
> Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
I don't disagree. My point is more that, given that regular folks have the power to set up mass surveillance (if they can afford the camera) already, it is the future we're headed towards. The only question is whether we want it in the hands of a few, or in the hands of all. There are problems with either approach.
Mass surveillance apparatus like flock cameras and their ilk have a huge surface area for abuse, meaning there must be at least as large a positive impact to even be worth considering.
Unfortunately, we already have plenty of historical evidence from areas that deployed cameras all over - e.g., London, where there was a near-zero drop in crime afterward, and multiple cities in the US, where police immediately began abusing the systems.
There is no baby to throw out, and the bathwater is toxic.
Until sufficient measures are in place to prevent abuse (and I have doubts it's even possible) then the cameras gotta go and they can do their jobs the same way the did decades before.
Flock took the path of least resistance setting them up often skirting any normal discussion that should have taken place with the community before they were installed.
We know that
- cops will push right up against the rules
- cops will break the rules
- courts will often not hold cops accountable when they break the rules
That’s a long winded way of saying, if they can abuse a system they will. There are no repercussions, and so the only way to stop the abuse is to prevent it from happening. I’d absolutely love to see massive reform to police in the US, but it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.