• Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 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
      2
      ·
      5 days 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
          2
          ·
          4 days 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
            2
            ·
            4 days 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.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I mean, not doing mass surveillance altogether sounds like a great idea… I’m not sure that’s directly possible right now though

              My point is that it’s not just a worse version of mass surveillance, it’s orders of magnitude worse. It absolves everyone from any actual responsibility, and in doing so absolutely guarantees these systems will be abused by police

                • theneverfox@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  It’s not about the court’s enforcement, it’s about responsibility

                  Every organization out there preserves itself. It’s why we have legal and HR departments. They don’t exist to protect their people, they exist to protect the organization

                  If a police department was caught wildly misusing unconstitutional searches, every case they tried in that period is opened to that exposure. That’s not just a huge embarrassment, it’s a massive amount of work that will tie up the local justice system for a significant period

                  That’s the kind of damage that can kill a police department wholesale, or at least cleanly sweep away all the leadership

                  The organization will protect itself against this kind of thing, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because organizations must preserve themselves or fade away. They’ll put in checks that will leave an audit trail and/or require a document ID to use such a system, because that’s what it takes to protect the organization. They’ll offload the responsibility onto the officers, and enforce the rules (even if just a slap on the wrist). That’s simply how organizations act, descriptively

                  I’m not saying that police in charge would be better, so much as this situation is so much worse. No one has responsibility here. The private company is not limited by the Constitution, and the police are just using a subscription to a commercial service

                  No one has to take responsibility if this turns into an issue. It’s the same as consulting companies and AI rejections - the primary purpose is to make it so when someone creates manmade horrors beyond comprehension, no one is responsible

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

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

      • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 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