Sometimes we just got to look the other way......

[Whaler27]

Technology is taking us into some pretty unprecedented territory. Figuring out how to take advantage of it without surrendering the freedoms that make this country what it is is going to be a challenge.

To answer your question directly: yes, I think ALPR networks should be eliminated. I don’t trust any institution enough to give it this kind of surveillance capability and assume it will always be used responsibly.

I’m not against police using technology. I’m generally opposed to giving government surveillance powers or capabilities unavailable to the people it governs - and yes, I apply that same principle to firearms, magazines, etc. I’m also fundamentally opposed to the government building non-criminal profiles on people who are suspected of nothing.

If ALPRs were somehow impossible to eliminate, then access should be heavily, heavily restricted. Every search of retained ALPR data should be permanently logged and require a warrant, suspicious access should be automatically flagged, and all access logs should be routinely audited by independent third parties with no connection to the agency being audited. Consequences for unauthorized access should be severe.

Warrants, probable cause and due process all make law enforcement less efficient. We accept that because limits on government power are a feature, not a bug.

I’m pretty hardline pro-freedom, even when freedom comes with increased risk. I can’t stand the thought of my kids growing up in a world where the government can quietly reconstruct where they’ve been, who they’ve been around, and what their routines are despite them never having done anything wrong.

My stance on this probably warrants one clarification: I’m very pro-police. My objection here is to the power itself, not the people wearing the badge.

Fair enough.

I share your distrust of big government, in part because I’ve seen unfathomable incompetence in leadership somehow rise to the top, and in part because it’s clear that a growing majority of our voters under a certain age don’t understand the likely consequences of their votes.

If we were living in another time, and everybody I cared about lived on my ranch and within my ability to protect, I’d probably be perfectly aligned with you, but my kids and grandkids are dispersed in the wild. My only effective option to improve their safety is a reasonably effective police force and military. I recognize the potential for either of those powers to be abused, but the alternative of continuing to weaken them is the worst solution, as it trades a potential risk for many current known risks.

 

[Stroke250]

I think the most concerning thing of all is what the future may hold with control of the people in some way(or every way) being pushed. @Whaler27 and @McE made valid and important points, the most worry some is related to what our children will be dealing with later on in life. My only hope for all is that we hold the line to what this great country was founded on and instill those values into our kids to continue the fight. The reality is, this is only going to get worse with technology.

 

[Whaler27]

… I can’t stand the thought of my kids growing up in a world where the government can quietly reconstruct where they’ve been, who they’ve been around, and what their routines are despite them never having done anything wrong.

I thought I’d respond to this thought with some disappointing news: For law enforcement targets who live in an urban or near-urban environment, this condition already exists. Between businesses and home systems, the camera density is extremely high, and almost everybody is willing to share their footage when asked. From a loss-of-privacy standpoint, the horse is already out of the barn. It just takes a huge amount of time and effort to piece it together. From a law enforcement perspective, assembling the video is so time and manpower consuming it can only be done in homicide cases (perhaps it’s different in other states where they value law enforcement and fund police?). Regardless of the state, the process can be useful in reconstructing/proving a crime, but it’s worthless in a dynamic situation like trying to stop a kidnap in progress or flight from a rape, robbery, or murder.

Since we can’t prevent people from having “Ring” cameras and security systems, and we can’t prevent than from sharing anything they wish with law enforcement, I don’t see this database going away.

Given the media chatter on this topic, I suspect we’ll strike the balance that deprives law enforcement of a powerful tool, while providing no actual protection of our privacy.

Some may say that a policy that substantially burdens law enforcement access is in fact meaningful privacy protection, but it isn’t. The only meaningful protection is one which prevents access even the government actors you’re worried about turn bad/rogue and abuse their power — but if the government actors really DO go rogue, they’ll shift resources as necessary to accomplish their objectives.

If the police had to rely only on this private camera data, the good guys using the technology appropriately won’t be able to it most efficiently and when it has the greatest potential to help most, but the bad acting government type could access it whenever. In this respect, the movement to deprive law enforcement access to Flock data is a bit like the gun control movement: well meaning or not, increased gun control only limits the gun access for law abiding citizens — because the criminals aren’t buying their firearms in gun stores.

 

[McE]

I thought I’d respond to this thought with some disappointing news: For law enforcement targets who live in an urban or near-urban environment, this condition already exists. Between businesses and home systems, the camera density is extremely high, and almost everybody is willing to share their footage when asked. From a loss-of-privacy standpoint, the horse is already out of the barn. It just takes a huge amount of time and effort to piece it together. From a law enforcement perspective, assembling the video is so time and manpower consuming it can only be done in homicide cases (perhaps it’s different in other states where they value law enforcement and fund police?). Regardless of the state, the process can be useful in reconstructing/proving a crime, but it’s worthless in a dynamic situation like trying to stop a kidnap in progress or flight from a rape, robbery, or murder.

Since we can’t prevent people from having “Ring” cameras and security systems, and we can’t prevent than from sharing anything they wish with law enforcement, I don’t see this database going away.

Given the media chatter on this topic, I suspect we’ll strike the balance that deprives law enforcement of a powerful tool, while providing no actual protection of our privacy.

Some may say that a policy that substantially burdens law enforcement access is in fact meaningful privacy protection, but it isn’t. The only meaningful protection is one which prevents access even the government actors you’re worried about turn bad/rogue and abuse their power — but if the government actors really DO go rogue, they’ll shift resources as necessary to accomplish their objectives.

If the police had to rely only on this private camera data, the good guys using the technology appropriately won’t be able to it most efficiently and when it has the greatest potential to help most, but the bad acting government type could access it whenever. In this respect, the movement to deprive law enforcement access to Flock data is a bit like the gun control movement: well meaning or not, increased gun control only limits the gun access for law abiding citizens — because the criminals aren’t buying their firearms in gun stores.

I appreciate your perspective and thorough responses.

The fact that reconstructing someone’s movements from scattered private cameras takes enormous time and effort is exactly the safeguard. ALPRs erase that friction and make surveillance cheap, instant, and scalable - and unlike gun control, restricting ALPRs limits government power over citizens, not citizens’ rights against government.

I appreciate the protector mentality, and I completely understand why someone with your career would see it that way. It’s a noble and well-intentioned position. I just come at it from a more liberty-first angle: I’d rather encourage more personal responsibility for our own safety and less dependence on government to provide it, even if that means accepting more risk.

We just have fundamentally different views on this, and that's alright. It's refreshing to disagree with someone respectfully, as odd as that may sound.

I’m not sure further discussion is going to sway either of us. I think we’ve gotten to the root of the disagreement

 

[Whaler27]

Exactly. It’s great to disagree with thoughtful friends.

I wish our current generation of twenty-somethings understood the value of sharing a conversation and a couple beers with good folks who hold opposing views. We might still disagree after the talk, but we’ll understand each other better, and we might disagree about less.

 

[captaineegee]

Pretty sure all sides are against the flock anyway. That, in and of itself, should raise red flags. I mean, when have all sides agreed on pretty much anything

1984 is well and truly upon us, and this quote is more prescient than ever, 'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command'. The thin guise of "fOr SaFeTy" is so obviously false.

 

[The Evil Twin]

, and almost everybody is willing to share their footage when asked.

not around here. It’s more like “tell me what you are looking for and I’ll see if it’s on any of my cameras. Maybe”

 

[Ragin Cajun]

First,
There are more fellow retired LEOs than I thought here.
Next,
Having participated in various forums over the years on a variety of subjects. This group here is one of the most intelligent. Most diverse in age and occupations as well.

Good conversation.

The cameras suck. The cameras save lives. The cameras prevent lawsuits. The cameras are abused by ne'er do wells. And AI has amplified every one of these things on every scale imaginable. 1984 was a warning, not a dystopian novel. We need to get a hold of it.

 

[Ragin Cajun]

 

[dzrtdzl]

I guess it all depends on the agency and their policies to use Flock. LVMPD is pretty strict when a Flock camera is used. For each individual inquiry and event number is attached showing when and who is inquiring. This at least helps with bad apples using it for nefarious reasons. I do agree and don't want the govt tracking regular citizens for daily patterns, just because. Not sure if that is really happening just yet. But, these data centers will help with that, if it ever happens. I am not one to fear monger or believe a lot of these YT or social media peeps. So far, I just live me life and all is well. What the future holds, no one knows and will never know until something does actually change the country. Been this way since forever. I still remember when debit cards came out when I was a kid and a cashless society was for sure going to happen.....................................

 

[ramv]

I do feel like there may be a bit of the conspiracy like with the crazy COVID 5G one. You carry your phone with you everywhere. It can be tracked. And as pointed out above Ring cameras and such can’t be stoppped.

I am not for them but it also feels like we are old men yelling at a cloud at this particular point…

My first photo speeding ticket was 30 years ago. 113 km/hr in a 100 zone. My last speeding ticket 14 years ago was a real cop with a real radar in a real (ridiculous) off ramp for 70 mph in 55 mph in Denver county (DIA).

 

[Whaler27]

I made the newspaper!

 

[Whaler27]

…Twice!

 

[ramv]

Just to be clear I don’t disagree with anyone’s opinions. It’s a very complicated topic but I do think we have limited ability to influence it. Although Texas chainsaw guy is cool, I would go more Jason style with the old school goalie mask but that’s just me…

I will say I hate the cameras on my house and would have taken them off but the GF is all for them. I drew the line at no interior cameras. I have zero interest in porch pirates and I don’t think a camera deters them. The previous owners had a bunch up and I think they are dumb. I will say her new car automatically records close calls which is kind of cool. I don’t want a dash cam on the truck but having the close calls recorded could be helpful .

 

[The Evil Twin]

Interesting changes to Flock Safety T&C lately. They used to say that customers retain the rights to their data and Flock deletes its data after 30 days.
Now, that has changed. The T&C now add a “perpetual” right for Flock to use customer data to “support and improve” its services — allowing the company to keep using driver surveillance data even after a town, city, or other customer has terminated its relationship with Flock.
Things that make you go