EFF's Position on Flock Camera Database Searches: 'Get a Warrant First' - and Police Use Should Be Restricted By Law (eff.org) 62
Some take their criticism even further. Reacting to Flock's changes, an EFF statement calls it "Too little, too late," while calling it Flock's admission that their technology needs reforms. But...
To be clear, our position has long been that police, at a minimum, need to get a warrant, signed by a judge, in order to search for historic ALPR data regarding specific vehicles. For us, it's common sense: if police want to dip into historic ALPR data like they were going back in time to retroactively follow your comings and goings, they need a warrant.
There's also nothing stopping Flock from rescinding these latest reforms. This all leads to the bigger and more important issue: We should not be letting companies decide how much privacy we deserve... It shouldn't be up to Flock or any other ALPR vendor to decide how long police can collect and retain data on millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent people. We need lawmakers to step up and pass laws that restrict police's use of surveillance technology.
After all, the surveillance business model is the problem, and a few company-imposed slapdash reforms aren't going to change that.
There's also nothing stopping Flock from rescinding these latest reforms. This all leads to the bigger and more important issue: We should not be letting companies decide how much privacy we deserve... It shouldn't be up to Flock or any other ALPR vendor to decide how long police can collect and retain data on millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent people. We need lawmakers to step up and pass laws that restrict police's use of surveillance technology.
After all, the surveillance business model is the problem, and a few company-imposed slapdash reforms aren't going to change that.
Make it a local election issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Flock cameras are invariably deployed by local police departments.
Local officials are the most vulnerable class to being voted out, because local elections are dominated by local issues, not national issues or party politics.
Make the surveillance cameras a local election issue. Raise awareness at local community groups. Be loud. You will see them be taken down quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally there are too many jurisdictions for them to bribe them all but we've given unlimited money to the top 0.1% so they've gotten to the point where they can start taking control of local politics. They've been doing it to the school boards for years so that they can control what your kids learn. Texas for example has put a specific denomination of the Christian Bible in their curriculum. And of course a spec
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That's true until the US federal government steps in and says they need to be in place + need access the data. ICE is able to do what they want wherever they want and local government can't stop them. All it takes is the decree from Cesar that these are needed to keep illegals out with the promise of downsizing the ICE presence if locals agree to this. If locals don't agree then federal funding gets cut from the local municipality.
Prior to the current Cesar, I'd believe in the power of local voices influ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Make it a local election issue (Score:2)
"If it didn't then outsiders traveling to and through certain sections of this country would be very dangerous indeed."
With apologies to Carlin, "Just like now!"
Re: Make it a local election issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"local elections are dominated by local issues, not national issues or party politics."
This is becoming less true every year. We can't blame it all on the media... but we can blame most of it. The rest is from the politicians.
Re: Make it a local election issue (Score:2)
I don't know where you are, but where I am local politicians don't even advertise or make known any party affiliation. They actually seem to actively avoid it.
Re:And so, Flock Week becomes Flock Month (Score:4, Insightful)
You think matters like this don't affect you. Suddenly the complaints get very loud when a camera is pointed at your local swimming pool or children's gym https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And so, Flock Week becomes Flock Month (Score:2)
He's a maggot, that's where he wants it pointed
Re:And so, Flock Week becomes Flock Month (Score:4, Funny)
SlashFlock
What the flock are you talking about? You don't have to flock with us, you could always go flock yourself.
Enemy of the State (Score:2)
reminds me of that old movie, where the government basically had a "time machine" of surveillance technology and could stalk you for hours days ago with no oversight.
Re:Enemy of the State (Score:4, Interesting)
The former is about a corrupt politician and rogue intelligence group whom abuse dragnet surveillance and hacking tech to harass and persecute individuals. The latter is about top secret technology that can view almost anywhere on Earth some fixed hours in the past and is eventually used for time travel to stop a terrorist bombing.
Re: Enemy of the State (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology that was highlighted in that movie originated around that time or a bit before. It goes by several names, but WAMI (wide area motion imagery) is kind of the generic term; it allows a forensic tech to rewind and track objects (people, vehicles) after an event. With AI and persistent vision, bottomless data center storage, it will allow everything / everyone to be tracked at all times. People don't know that this is already deployed over many large cities; essentially global hawk drones with hi
Crime has been going down for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
There are much better ways to reduce crime than giving the cops the ability to stalk us. They aren't as cool in a dirty hairy cop movie kind of way but they actually work.
That's kind of the problem. The things that actually make our lives better for real are pretty fucking boring. They mostly involve committee hearings instead of the most powerful handgun in the world and counting the number of bullets in a shootout
Re: (Score:2)
You would not care about things like trafficking, drug dealing, reckless driving etc.
Whatever happen to trust the science? Basic psychology tells you the best way to condition people to not do a thing is to have enforcement be swift and certain. A large amount of crime happens because people expect to get away with it. Every-time someone speeds for example this is almost universally the case. Why do they have that exception? because it is mostly true.
If anything about how we administer society was reaso
Re: (Score:3)
Human trafficking is mostly a problem in third world countries that are third world countries because our CIA won't stop fucking with them. Defund the CIA. Take the money and spend it on foreign aid instead. It's cheaper to drop food than bombs.
Make walkable cities and public transportation. That'll take care of your reckless driving problems mostly. People don't drive drunk cuz it's fun people drive drunk because we don't have a function
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the reason cops don't judiciously enforce the speed limit is so they can "justify" pulling over any car they want, whenever they want, and just say whatever the fuck they want was the reason. Your word against theirs and I can assure you, the judge and him are well acquainted.
We've left it up to a human's discretion to pull you over versus to actually pull people over that are speeding. They like the status quo because they can abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to that problem is speed cameras, which people will rage over just like the Flock cameras. But it actually is the proper application of that kind of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm probably one of the few people that WISH we could really hold people accountable for the driving laws. I'm the nerd driving the speed limit and just wish people would slow down. At least in the middle of the city. I understand if you are out in the boonies, such as farm land or the drive East of San Diego into Arizona along the 8 (literally nothing to run into).
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of states actually have five mile an hour laws, where they explicitly don't write citations for people going five over or less for exactly those reasons. We don't want to be punishing people for minor calibration errors ( could be the cops equipment too ) when the reason for the law is to prevent people from creating dangerous situations. 68 in a 60 zone probably isn't most of the time.
However I bet you that same officer watches people buzz by at 70+ all day long and also does nothing. I don't think
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds about right. I'm fine with a 5, heck even 10 mph over. I don't drive that way myself, but within 10 over isn't so bad. It's the fuckers driving 80+ in the 65 zone in the middle of the city. It's fine in the middle of no where. Lots of roads in this country that would be fine.
Heck, move to Idaho. The speed limit is 80. Speed all you want. Hardly anything to run into out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the surveillance business model is the problem
No, the problem is that the surveillance business model is legal.
Re:Almost (Score:5, Insightful)
100% this. Flock is no different than a Ring camera. So, if flock would require a warrant, then Ring should too even if the home-owner is willing to provide the data freely. It's the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
100% this. Flock is no different than a Ring camera. So, if flock would require a warrant, then Ring should too even if the home-owner is willing to provide the data freely. It's the same thing.
I'm not so sure about that. If police observe you filming a crime, they are allowed to ask you to freely provide that video without requiring a warrant. And if you post it publicly on social media, they can do what they want with it. Video of the Boston marathon bombing and the Jan 6 insurrection are good examples. They still cannot compel you to share without a warrant. The same applies to businesses. If the security cameras at a gas station happen to catch something happening across the street, police can
Re: (Score:2)
How do we prevent abuses from the police?
But it's private data (Score:2)
So, would they also need a warrant for Ring camera video that a homeowner is willing to provide freely? And will they be stopped by the law from accepting video from a homeowner unless a warrant were signed too? Same thing, different company, right?
Warrants can be very easy to get (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Warrants can be very easy to get (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least it makes that request for access a matter of public record. That will put a stop to police stalking with the use of Flock data for their own personal gain.
We all know how this goes (Score:2)
Someone will figure out how to break into either the Flock camera or the network due to poor security practices or laziness.
Then it will be a free for all of data dumping. Followed by a comedy of failures trying to secure the networks.
Then calls to government to help them but by then the government will pile on because they think they can get fines as income from the company.
Then Chapter 11 followed by 7. Liquidation sales, thefts, etc., and people bragging about putting the cameras to use as a private sec
Government Position On EFF Position (Score:2)
LOL!
No.
They don't know how laws work (Score:3)
Re:They don't know how laws work (Score:4, Interesting)
When I can get access to the same data from Flock as the police I will agree with you. But since there is no public access to it I would say it is solely for law enforcement use and thus requires a warrant to access.
Flock does not voluntarily give the police information, they sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
but you can't restrict a company or citizen from volunteering the data.
"the data." Whose data is it actually? I consider that information concerning what I'm doing or where I am still belongs to me. Even when observed by someone (or something) else. I can make a copy of Disney's latest Blu-ray disc. But it's still their property and I'm not free to distribute it as I see fit.
The same thing holds true for person's actions witnessed by another. I can't be expected to bear witness as if that person has no interest in my observation. There are mechanisms in place to compel me to
Re: (Score:2)
EFF is completely wrong here. It would never stand up in court to tell a private company that they can't willingly give info to the police.
HIPAA [wikipedia.org] disagrees with you. "Covered entities" (health-care providers) are generally prohibited from releasing Protected Health Information (PHI) or Personally Identifiable Information (PII) even to the police, except as noted in Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A, Subchapter C, Section 164.512 [ecfr.gov] (e): "In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or" [additional
Re: (Score:2)
That is NOT the REAL issue (Score:3)
No, the bigger and more important issue is that we should not be letting anyone retain that data. If you want to do ALPR there is one and only one correct way to do it: You build a list of license plates you want information about after getting warrants about them, that list is sent to the point of recognition whether it's a camera or a data center, and any data about any plate not that list is not stored. There is no other way to fix the problem besides not collecting the data in the first place, period.
I'd add (Score:3)
...with extraordinary penalties - I mean like immediate firing AND PROSECUTION - for authorities given access to the data using it for any reason aside from the direct execution of a clearly-defined warrant.
In essence, as a person in authority, you should view being granted access to fishing through these things with anxiety, like being "the guy who has the key to the money room". You have a position of a) substantial access to personal data, and b) a low barrier to abuse (eg it's unfortunately technically easy to say 'hm I'm done the running those license plate requests, let's see what my g/f was doing....". You should be hyperaware that everything you do, every keypress, everything you look at, is going to be scrutinized.
Re: I'd add (Score:2)
And the more authority, the more scrutiny is justified. Anyone armed should be subjected to a lot of it.
There is a perfectly reasonable compromise (Score:3)
The warrant issue should revolve around one question: what is the likely, foreseeable outcome of having to wait for a judge to sign off on a warrant. It's low risk to get a warrant to pursue a typical car thief. It's unacceptably high risk to make law enforcement wait if the request is based around an Amber Alert or a suspect who is armed and dangerous and just fled the scene of a violent felony.
If I made the rules (Score:2)
A warrant would be required for every use.
The control console would be in the courthouse, not the police station.
Every use would be monitored by an officer of the court.
Every use would be logged and entered into the public record.
Private companies should not circumvent 4th (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really as simple as this: a private company should not be able to circumvent our 4th amendment rights.
Even if their collection of the data is legal on the face of it, their use and sale of that data to law enforcement should explicitly not be. LE using a private company to end-run the 4th amendment needs to be struct down by SCOTUS in no uncertain terms. Every single search done by LE should have a signed warrant - no exceptions.
Looking more broadly, congress needs to get it's shit together and pass laws restricting this kind of mass surveillance in general.
The 'problem' is there's plenty of uses to justify this "we caught the car thief" but the potential for abuse is FAR too great. The utter invasion of privacy is beyond reason. Better a criminal go free than an innocent man be jailed.
It's not the ALPR. It's the registration lookup. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the ALPR. It's the registration lookup that's the problem. ALPR - the core tech - is genuinely useful. Consider this thought experiment: normal people (you, me and our neighbourhood posse) implement our own ALPR network. We run it on poles in frontyards, on old mobiles duct-taped to windows, on personal phones in its cradle as we drive around. We run torrents that sync ALPR data with trusted nodes. Someone vibe-codes an app that correlates ALPR data with public crime report: It flag plates possibly associated with crime, such as the casing of an area before burglaries. Another app detects bad driving (yes, where someone's "bad" could be someone else's "snazz").
So far, all is functioning as it should. Capturing ALPR data privately is just photography in a public area with no privacy violation. The plates are both and provide anonymity to vehicle owners, divers and passenger. The private ALPR network could help report concerns about specific plates to the police with no idea who owns the plates.
What breaks privacy is running a plate/car registration. Now you know the owner, where they live, whether they have insurance. Doing *that* should require lawful exigency or a warrant.
Re: It's not the ALPR. It's the registration looku (Score:2)
Correction to my typos above: "The plates are both: on public display, and meant to provide anonymity (*) to vehicle owners, drivers and passengers"
(*) Not including plates such as "LEON-72"
Re: (Score:2)
What breaks privacy is the mass surveillance. EVERYBODY has their life recorded in detail. At best, all it takes is a friendly judge, and the police will be sticking their long, flexible noses into your business, and probably the business of your friends and relatives as well. But do you really think a nosy cop needs to run a plate? Existing software can track a car from the moment you park it in your driveway for the first time until the time you have it carted off for scrap.
I would agree on this but dependent on the crime. (Score:2)
But still sell the data (Score:1)
Police don't like having to follow the law (Score:2)
that's why the cops break the law every goddamned day
The Next Logical Step is... (Score:2)
Well then...we are... (Score:2)
Well then...we are...flocked.
JoshK.
Law enforcement isn't the only use-case (Score:2)
Getting a warrant isn't all that difficult. I've seen them get issued within an hour of determining a need for one. It sets a paper trail that has be defensible to a judge and later in court.
But that's just one use-case. If law enforcement were the only people allowed access to flock information, that would be one thing. These devices don't only get turned on when law enforcement gets a warrant. But nobody knows who has access to the information. Nobody knows who's made copies of it. Nobody knows who