• Kay Ohtie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    17 hours ago

    When I worked for a healthcare software company one of my roles was technical support on a controlled substance monitoring program on a state-by-state basis.

    Cops had a separate login portal, and had to go through quite a process to get their account. Once they did, they could submit a search, but had to justify it with a reason that included the warrant number. And even then, it required secondary approval of the search request by a state-level employee.

    Why the fuck is that not the minimum for searching someone’s whereabouts?

    (To add, I think such programs are unethical when available to cops. For doctors, it was used to make sure a patient wasn’t doc-shopping for opiates, and even then I’m hesitant. It has a potential to save lives via intervention upon finding someone’s 'shopping, but I don’t think it’s usually used as a safe intervention.)

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It’s just demonstrating that the “reason for search” field for accountability actually has zero accountability. This should be tied to the identity of the person filling the field and mockery of procedure should be grounds for demotion and/or loss of access, but we know that neither is the actual way things run.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It’s because of dilution of responsibility.

        Private companies aren’t restricted by the Constitution, so they’re not on the hook. Police are just using a private service, so the department isn’t on the hook either

        So really, it’s no one’s responsibility to make sure this isn’t abused. That’s what we have to fix

        • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Thats by design. We know about accountability. We know how to implement it into software. Thus was designed this way on purpose. Dont count on it being fixed by itself. We will have to force them.

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

            The problem is the accountability, but we can’t fix this by just forcing them to modify the software. We have to fix the incentives

            It’s not only that we need police to have a signed warrant or adding auditing and punishing the cops who misuse the system, because this is only one symptom of the root problem

            It’s deeper than just the misuse, it’s also that these systems don’t care about security. It’s also that these companies are happy to sell this information to anyone willing to pay. It’s also that police blindly trust the output of these systems without verifying the information

            We can’t legislate rules to make these systems work. They’ll never work, because no one is responsible when they don’t

            That’s the actual problem we have to fix.

            Private companies should not be allowed to possess this data at any point. They want to sell cameras and sell software to search through the data? Fine.

            But flock can’t own the data. Flock employees can’t have access to it. Police should only be allowed use them in their own jurisdiction. If they want to track someone across the country, they should be in the FBI

            We need to protect this data the way we do health records. We need HIPPA laws for individual privacy, because without clear legal restrictions on the who can own and access the data, this entire concept is a constant mass constitutional violation

            And it goes far beyond the cameras… Credit card companies will sell our purchase history to anyone for a couple hundred dollars. Phone manufacturers and cell providers will sell our location data to the police and private companies. Black box systems will mislabel innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, leading to arrests and unjust jail time for those not in a position to defend themselves. And these are real world examples happening now

            This problem has been around for a while, it’s just that the cameras have finally gotten people to pay attention to the ongoing violations against us all

            We can’t let private companies trade our personal data just because they are able to collect it.

            We need to treat this data like health information, with strict access rules and certifications that the information is properly protected, and consequences that will make both police organizations and private companies have an incentive to care

            Even if we made the flock cameras illegal, without a new HIPPA for privacy they’ll just find new ways to collect the information and continue to violate our rights

  • Brem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 day ago

    Cops are usually one of two things.

    1. bullied future stalker

    2. (rarely) defending us from bullied future stalker