• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 days 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.

    • Noxy@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days 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

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      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

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      the 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 (automatic license plate recognition) cameras have been around for a long time, but it previously wasn’t an issue because access to the data was restricted. Same with security CCTV cameras. Other jurisdictions had to subpoena the data rather than being able to instantly access everything.

      Flock’s cameras are much more than ALPR though. They make a profile of every car they see, and can track cars even if they don’t have license plates based on identifying features (dents, big scratches, bumper stickers, etc).

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        3 days 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.

      • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Considering 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day 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

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours 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

              • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                I understand it is unconstitutional. My point is that it simply does not matter to the cops. Again, the easier thing is to not have cameras at all. Systems can be circumvented. Not having the cameras at all makes it so nobody can abuse them. Mass surveillance is not necessary or good.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          They should have to get a warrant, because of the fourth amendment.

          • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days 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

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days 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.

  • Jul@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah, need to find a way to go after the government to stop using the tech rather than going after a single company. Eventually, Flock will just go bankrupt, the pieces will get bought up and either sold to a competitor or the VC that buys them will change the name and start a new company that’s basically the same and the executives from Flock will join that or go to competitors. There’s not much use attacking a single company these days. But it is good that attention is being brought to the technology in use and how the government is using it.

  • Thorry@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    It is very revealing how the people rebelling against Flock isn’t seen as the people opposing mass surveillance and data being made available to all the cops without cause, due process, oversight, restrictions or consequences for abuse, but instead as the people being against Flock specifically and the same system with a different label would be peachy.

    Either they are monumentally stupid or more likely they are corrupt as hell and/or evil.