Given the Snowden leaks, it seems inevitable that if that data is being recorded and collected into the servers of a small number of US companies, that it will end up being used to enable nationwide searches regardless
Comment on Flock is canceled—and its competitors are profiting
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
As far as I understand it, the alternatives do not include a nationwide search as part of their features. Flock is actually especially bad on that front.
That said, I think most of the emotional revulsion against Flock is just the idea of persistent tracking of everyone by your local police force, and that isn’t mitigated by a brand switch.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
noxypaws@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
the alternatives do not include a nationwide search as part of their features
that’s what palantir is for, unfortunately. I would be shocked if they didn’t already have a “solution” for this, or at least if they aren’t already working on it.
and Axon sure as shit ain’t broke, being the rebranded literal Taser company, they can afford the R&D to develop it, and will probably get free cash from the fascist government to do so in the near future anyways
dan@upvote.au 3 weeks ago
Yeah I think people would feel much better if the cameras were operated by the local police department, and they were the only ones that had access to it. ALPR cameras have been around for a long time, but it previously wasn’t an issue because access to the data was restricted. Other jurisdictions had to subpoena the data rather than being able to instantly access everything.
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
The local police should also need to go to court to access their own cameras. The 4th amendment protects against police surveiling people without a warrant.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I’m pretty sure part of why this is all being done is because the police can’t legally do this. A third party company can though, and police can purchase access (in their theory at least, though this is being tested).
howrar@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Maybe police shouldn’t be allowed to pay a third party to do something they themselves aren’t allowed to do. Just a thought.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Absolutely. It’s stupid that they maybe possibly can. It’s being tested in the courts. They definitely are allowed to abuse it to some extent, but maybe not like they are with these cameras. It doesn’t make any sense either way though.
The way phone data works, they have to get a warrant. They aren’t legally allowed to obtain it from phone companies until they have one, even if the company is more than happy to provide it. How this doesn’t automatically apply in the same way to these cameras is crazy.
dan@upvote.au 3 weeks ago
I agree. I don’t like that a private company is involved, at all. Companies should just supply the hardware, and not have full access to the system.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Consider the ridiculous amount of stalking from cops using these cameras, no, I don’t think people would be OK with only local cops having access
theneverfox@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
If the cops were in control, they’d be violating the fourth amendment when they do that without going to the courts
Where as if it’s a private service the police department pays for, it’s a legal gray area
Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Stalking is also illegal. Doesn’t seem to stop them
dan@upvote.au 3 weeks ago
They should have to get a warrant, because of the fourth amendment.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Should, yes, but they won’t. Cops in the US are some of the most corrupt people. The simpler and safer solution is to not have the cameras at all. Mass surveillance is never the answer