OT - Flock Cameras

[BossDawg78]

To rule out a law enforcement technique because there are errors is to eliminate law enforcement. No system involving technology or humans is going to be error free, but Flock cameras are almost certainly more reliable than eye witness testimony. The problem is that any power that can be abused will be abused, so you have to decide what power you can live with being abused. We historically have decided that the power for warrantless searches is too much power that will be abused. We've historically treated anything in public as not having an expectation of privacy. We may have to think about that in an era of mass data, mass surveilance, and AI.

I'm still undecided on flock cameras other than I don't want police having unfettered access to them. The real problem is that we don't have any accountability at the federal level. We're not good at it at the state level, but you do see cops being fired for abusing surveillance data and you have the federal option for lawsuits. The fact that nobody from the Obama or Biden administration suffered any consequences for abusing FISA, spying on journalists, spying on congressmen, etc., means we really, really shouldn't want the feds to have access to these, and the only way to prevent that may be to stop them from being up to begin with.

But, they do (or at least can) make a lot of people in poor and crime ridden areas safer. We're underpoliced in our most violent areas compared to other developed countries as far as actual beat walking policemen, and this technology could help offset that some. The people in those communities are going to bear the brunt of any overly aggressive surveillance but also are much more likely to be beneficiaries of it in the form of less victimization. I think I'd probably like to see them in the worst ares of places like Baltimore or Chicago and see what impact they have on crime rates. I'd also like to see them in some fringe areas to see if they help areas stall or reverse a decline. Would flock cameras help keep the tradeoffs of northeast jackson acceptable for the remaining holdouts? Or maybe help areas like around JA bounce back? I assume that data on the impact in areas like that is actually out there based if you can get data on on flock camera rollouts and compare it to crime data in those areas.

A guy my buddy worked with in Tulsa was killed by a drunk driver as he was walking home from the store and the driver fled the scene. I don't know if it was by tag number, make and model of the car, damage to the front or some combination thereof, but he was caught by a flock camera.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I'm continually amazed at how obedient Americans have become to outright state surveillance in less than one generation. Before 9/11, most of the "security" measures we have now would have made everyone furious across the political spectrum.

We let our government take advantage of a national tragedy, and since then it has been a rapid stripping away of all privacy. And people seem totally fine with it. It's astonishing.

If anyone brings up the "surveillance in your pocket" argument, this is certainly not that. Public cameras given to policing bodies are a tremendous invasion of privacy and should be anathema to anyone who claims to love freedom. Privacy is the greatest freedom other than interstate movement and speech, and we hand ours over to anyone who claims to be able to make us "safer." It's disgusting.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

We've historically treated anything in public as not having an expectation of privacy. We may have to think about that in an era of mass data, mass surveilance, and AI.

This is the key. We are enabling these based on tradeoffs that made sense 200 years ago. They dont make much sense with today's tech. No one wants to live their life under a microscope, especially when that scope belongs to the government. The ability of this tech to be turned on non-criminals who have disfavored views, is immense and terrifying.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I would only add that more information in the hands of local policing bodies now means that information being sold to private companies and, of course, appropriated by the federal government as they see fit. There is no reasonable expectation that this information will be limited to the local authority that initially collects it. See DOGE and its appropriation of our Social Security information during the "waste reduction" phase earlier this year.

 

[HotMop]

T

I'm continually amazed at how obedient Americans have become to outright state surveillance in less than one generation. Before 9/11, most of the "security" measures we have now would have made everyone furious across the political spectrum.

We let our government take advantage of a national tragedy, and since then it has been a rapid stripping away of all privacy. And people seem totally fine with it. It's astonishing.

If anyone brings up the "surveillance in your pocket" argument, this is certainly not that. Public cameras given to policing bodies are a tremendous invasion of privacy and should be anathema to anyone who claims to love freedom. Privacy is the greatest freedom other than interstate movement and speech, and we hand ours over to anyone who claims to be able to make us "safer." It's disgusting.

There's no expectation of privacy while you are in public though. Haven't you watched enough of these idiot "auditors" to know this?

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Probably a dumb question, but how do they know whether or not you have car insurance?

Fixed it for you...

 

[JackReacherDawg]

T

There's no expectation of privacy while you are in public though. Haven't you watched enough of these idiot "auditors" to know this?

Under current SC interpretations, yes, based on their views of reasonable tradeoffs given the tech of the time. As the tech has advanced, the tradeoffs should change as well.

If you could resurrect the past courts that set those tradeoffs, restrictions, etc, I believe they would he horrified at the current status quo and would enact strict restrictions. But the current court is much more favorable to police actions, abuses, and power, and skeptical of restrictions to those in the name of liberty.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

T

There's no expectation of privacy while you are in public though. Haven't you watched enough of these idiot "auditors" to know this?

Plus, this is not exactly correct. For example, I think the main reason between the legal differences in recording video and audio (besides varying state laws), is that you have an expectation that no one not in your vicinity can hear you, but you dont have an expectation that you cant be seen by anyone in line of sight. You do have some (limited) expectation of privacy, it just wasn't applied to video recording decades ago. I would argue you do have an expectation that your movements arent being tracked and analyzed by an algorithm. That your life history of public appearances isn't being logged to be analyzed and viewed on a whim.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Who doesn't think it's okay for a few innocent people to get inconvienced (perhaps even incarcerated for awhile) as long as we get the BAD GUYS.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Am I right?

Am I right?

 

[ckDOG]

Who doesn't think it's okay for a few innocent people to get inconvienced (perhaps even incarcerated for awhile) as long as we get the BAD GUYS.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Am I right?

Am I right?

Would you say that from a cell?

 

[Walkthedawg]

For every one of those, there are 1000s of positive results.

So if the government kicks in 1000 doors to find drug traffickers, but kick in yours by mistake and jail you over a weekend for charges, its okay because they found 999 drug traffickers?

 

[patdog]

One innocent prrson going to jail is too many.

That's kind of the whole basis of our criminal justice system.

 

[Maroon13]

So if the government kicks in 1000 doors to find drug traffickers, but kick in yours by mistake and jail you over a weekend for charges, its okay because they found 999 drug traffickers?

No it's not okay. I've worked in the LE for 22 years. It takes more PC than flock intel to kick in someone's door. Other mistakes were made if a wrong address and wrong person was arrested. I guarantee the Leo will suffer the consequences of the mistake too.

 

[WrapItDog]

I've worked in the LE for 22 years. It takes more PC than flock intel to kick in someone's door.

Maybe a house door but the cops are already opening car doors with guns drawn and arresting people with only the Flock camera data as probable cause.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

T

There's no expectation of privacy while you are in public though. Haven't you watched enough of these idiot "auditors" to know this?

I think that the incredibly invasive technologies that we're talking about now exceed anything that criminal procedure intended to cover under concepts of privacy even 30 years ago, much less 100-200 years ago. Your car can be followed from origin point to destination in some parts of the country, and with some "agency cooperation", those can be weaved together for an invasion of privacy in the public sector.

Whether that might lead to the apprehension of some bad guys is just not worth the degradation of individual privacy rights. We exchange a certain amount of personal safety for privacy in America. That's the bargain. But I'd argue we more than make up for that with our 2A rights.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

No it's not okay. I've worked in the LE for 22 years. It takes more PC than flock intel to kick in someone's door. Other mistakes were made if a wrong address and wrong person was arrested. I guarantee the Leo will suffer the consequences of the mistake too.

It should take more PC than a Flock camera, but you and I both know that is frequently not the case.

 

[champdawg.sixpack]

The fact that you still use "trannys" is also wildly inappropriate and is a slur now. Its also not a mental illness.

I’ll call them whatever the 17 I want to call them and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Would you say that from a cell?

Probably not ---

but it's never been about me.

 

[Maroon13]

It should take more PC than a Flock camera, but you and I both know that is frequently not the case.

To get a search or arrest warrant? In my experience It takes far more than a flock intel. But I'm not going to argue with you

 

[mstateglfr]

I’ll call them whatever the 17 I want to call them and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it

Well now this comment does actually apply to what I said in post 54.

We as a society not only have permission to be our worst selves, but are even encouraged.
This stuff is all too normal.

Why say that?
It the same thing for racially derogatory terms. Why use racially derogatory terms? You can...but why?

I dont understand the desire to be intentionally rude/cruel/offensive towards entire groups of people.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Well now this comment does actually apply to what I said in post 54.

We as a society not only have permission to be our worst selves, but are even encouraged.
This stuff is all too normal.

Why say that?
It the same thing for racially derogatory terms. Why use racially derogatory terms? You can...but why?

I dont understand the desire to be intentionally rude/cruel/offensive towards entire groups of people.

Because....

FREEDOM!!

This is 'Murica, dagnabit!

 

[Walkthedawg]

No it's not okay. I've worked in the LE for 22 years. It takes more PC than flock intel to kick in someone's door. Other mistakes were made if a wrong address and wrong person was arrested. I guarantee the Leo will suffer the consequences of the mistake too.

Well the door kicking was simply an analogy. But you get the point of it. The slippery slope is what it's meant to show.

It's just like our little town out running speed radar on HWY 45 when MS law forbids it due to the small population of the town. Most people are probably clueless they are not supposed to be doing it and pay the ticket even when it's illegally issued. But people that know can easily have the ticket dismissed. They know they aren't supposed to be doing it... but that doesn't matter. It's revenue. It's also broken trust. Just like the inevitable privacy issues with flock cameras.

What would make it better, at least, is if flock information could only be pulled with a signed order from a judge. You then still have the information available, but there is legal process.

 

[WrapItDog]

It's revenue.

In the not so distant future. All cop cars will have a Flock camera on the dash of every cop car. A cop stops at a red light and the flock data says one car in front of him has no insurance & another is owned by a person w $20k past due child support. The cop has a decision to make here. What's he do?

Turns right into Dodge's to chat up the chick slinging fried chicken.

 

[johnson86-1]

So if the government kicks in 1000 doors to find drug traffickers, but kick in yours by mistake and jail you over a weekend for charges, its okay because they found 999 drug traffickers?

I mean, I think it depends a lot on process and how it was handled afterwards. If they do 1000 no knock warrants, and they are correct on 999 of them, and one of them they had bad intelligence but they did have intelligence that they were reasonable but it turns out it was the drug dealers girlfriend's house and not somewhere he was operating out of, that's probably an error rate that can be lived with even if it's not "ok"? If they just get the wrong entire house (which has happened more than once), or rely on somebody that is just saying whatever to get paid (which has also happened more than once), no knocks are dangerous enough that I think 999 out of 1,000 isn't good enough when the mistake is just a general careless or reckless 17 up like that. They should be lit up with civil liability and out of a job.

 

[HotMop]

In the not so distant future. All cop cars will have a Flock camera on the dash of every cop car. A cop stops at a red light and the flock data says one car in front of him has no insurance & another is owned by a person w $20k past due child support. The cop has a decision to make here. What's he do?

Turns right into Dodge's to chat up the chick slinging fried chicken.

There's a certain charm to a woman that slings chicken.

 

[Negative Waves]

I'm noticing Flock cameras being put in places that are already low or non-existent crime areas. The criminals tend to stay away from areas that are heavily policed/tough on crime. I can understand a private property owner such as a factory, office park, or private road neighborhoods placing them, but to me they have no business on public streets. This is a mass surveillance/data collection system quietly being constructed, and one day someone in power is going to go for the brass ring and create a nightmare for the rest of us.