Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
Neat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong.
All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.
Well, I'll be damned, we finally did something smart in our state legislature. This definitely feels like a "The worst person you know made a good point", but that's me assuming Jason Osborne was in favor.
should also mandate that the license plate data that constitutes a 'hit' must be sent and stored at rest encrypted so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for.
> so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for
You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
Even better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock.
P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.
The fact that it came down to a governor to set these standards means it's going to be subject to even more abuse.
It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security.
We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.
We don't need mass surveillance with guardrails, we need no mass surveillance. This is good, though, unless it prevents getting rid of mass surveillance.
fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.
Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications.
It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.
The problem in the US is that the "photography in public" right, and expectation of privacy rules are deeply entwined with the first amendment. You have to deal with the practicality of what is most likely the most universally popular amendment, and also deal with the fallout of handing a weapon to those that want to squelch free speech and free press.
The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.
Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”
Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.
Go even further and just adopt the New Hampshire law which doesn't even allow "non-hit" license plate images or records to be transferred off the camera device itself and must be deleted locally within 3 minutes.
Neat, had no idea this was a law in NH. This is exactly what I've been arguing in favor of for years; the issue with flock is primarily that it treats everyone as a criminal by default, profiling everything you do even when you've done nothing wrong.
All you'd need after enforcing all cameras be 'hit-based' is also mandating warrants to enact a search, and you've significantly neutered the issue with them in their current state.
Well, I'll be damned, we finally did something smart in our state legislature. This definitely feels like a "The worst person you know made a good point", but that's me assuming Jason Osborne was in favor.
Huh https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/traffic-camera-tickets/...
should also mandate that the license plate data that constitutes a 'hit' must be sent and stored at rest encrypted so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for.
> so that someone can't break into a camera and see who's beeing searched for
You know what, if a camera maker is incompetent enough to do this I'm fine leaving it as a back-end for figuring out what the surveillance state is up to.
Even better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
Good to see the “and ALPRs” added. Flock is not the only game in town, and many cities are switching to other vendors while saying that they dumped Flock.
P.S. to the “Flock is YC” guy: everyone posting here knows. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.
This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.
The fact that it came down to a governor to set these standards means it's going to be subject to even more abuse.
It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security.
We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.
When I recognize someone at the mall, how long should I be able to remember that?
As long as you want. What should be illegal is hiring a bunch of people to follow everyone around and share notes.
Willfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
10 days, then we come after you with a big cartoon mallet to make you forget.
We don't need mass surveillance with guardrails, we need no mass surveillance. This is good, though, unless it prevents getting rid of mass surveillance.
"Kehoe encouraged local agencies to voluntarily commit to those practices when possible under existing contracts and laws".
So in other words, nothing happened.
fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.
Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications.
It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.
The problem in the US is that the "photography in public" right, and expectation of privacy rules are deeply entwined with the first amendment. You have to deal with the practicality of what is most likely the most universally popular amendment, and also deal with the fallout of handing a weapon to those that want to squelch free speech and free press.
The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.
Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”
Restricting private use of ALPR cameras? I don't like that. I like the protection our ALPR cameras give us. I moved to Missouri recently because I got sick of the crime and corruption in California. I think these "guardrails" go too far.
I think everyone you’re recording without consent would disagree with you. Might even be upset with you.
How have you stopped crime and corruption by recording people without their knowledge?
seems like a troll comment baiting people to shit on Missouri for some reason
[dead]