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).
Comment on Flock is canceled—and its competitors are profiting
dan@upvote.au 1 month agothe alternatives do not include a nationwide search as part of their features
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.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
howrar@lemmy.ca 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago
Stalking is also illegal. Doesn’t seem to stop them
theneverfox@pawb.social 1 month ago
I’m not saying I trust the police. I’m saying if it’s outright unconstitutional to access without the courts, the IT department is going to put checks in the system
It’s like how you can’t trust HR to protect you personally, but you can rely on them to protect the organization
dan@upvote.au 1 month ago
They should have to get a warrant, because of the fourth amendment.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 month 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
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 month 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.