Oshkosh Police chief in the news

[StraightnLevel]

This topic may be a bit close to edge for this forum, but I think it may be relevant in relation to general discussions of privacy around tail numbers and ADS-B.

Summary: The Oshkosh chief of police discovered that Flock had clearly mis-represented their use of tracking data, and as a result asked the town council to terminate the contract. The council agreed, with a 7-0 vote.

https://www.facebook.com/100064860241186/posts/1671315561707103

 

[Sac Arrow]

Way to tell them to go Flock themselves.

 

[GaryM]

Flock cameras have been watching us for years. Now that there is a groundswell of people watching back, the company is encountering resistance in MANY municipalities.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Flock cameras have been watching us for years. Now that there is a groundswell of people watching back, the company is encountering resistance in MANY municipalities.

Well, the technology has changed. The simple speed and red-light cameras that collected your tag number when they detected a violation were annoying, but generally accepted as within the limits of the 4th Amendment. No data collection until AFTER a violation was detected, ergo, legal.

Over the past couple of years, Flock, Axon, etc. have built global databases and are using AI to build a mass surveillance network. Part of their contracts now allow them to collect data on every vehicle and person within the vehicles, at all times, at every location, and combine that data to create maps for every single person. Where they went, when they went there, their travel patterns, who was with them, etc. No warrant, no probably cause, just global mass surveillance that can be stored and accessed by anyone on the planet.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Over the past couple of years, Flock, Axon, etc. have built global databases and are using AI to build a mass surveillance network. Part of their contracts now allow them to collect data on every vehicle and person within the vehicles, at all times, at every location, and combine that data to create maps for every single person. Where they went, when they went there, their travel patterns, who was with them, etc. No warrant, not probably cause, just global mass surveillance that can be stored and accessed by anyone on the planet.

The only thing missing in that chain is giving all that data to Palantir, then you're most of the way to 1984.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, the technology has changed. The simple speed and red-light cameras that collected your tag number when they detected a violation were annoying, but generally accepted as within the limits of the 4th Amendment. No data collection until AFTER a violation was detected, ergo, legal.

Over the past couple of years, Flock, Axon, etc. have built global databases and are using AI to build a mass surveillance network. Part of their contracts now allow them to collect data on every vehicle and person within the vehicles, at all times, at every location, and combine that data to create maps for every single person. Where they went, when they went there, their travel patterns, who was with them, etc. No warrant, not probably cause, just global mass surveillance that can be stored and accessed by anyone on the planet.

What could possibly go wrong?

What can go wrong? Just ask the people in the People's Republic of China. The flock system isn't much different than what they have there. The only difference is that the PRC government cuts out the middleman (Flock).

 

[StraightnLevel]

The only thing missing in that chain is giving all that data to Palantir, then you're most of the way to 1984.

Correct. Now add in some ADS-B data, and it's a totalitarian's dream system.

 

[Lindberg]

No data collection until AFTER a violation was detected, ergo, legal.

There's no expectation of privacy driving on public roads, so the Fourth Amendment is largely irrelevant.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

There's no expectation of privacy driving on public roads, so the Fourth Amendment is largely irrelevant.

I am no constitutional expert. But surely there is something, if not the 4th amendment, that is intended to discourage mass surveillance and warehousing of personal details on people who have committed no crime? Maybe there isn't... just seems like there should be.

 

[StraightnLevel]

There's no expectation of privacy driving on public roads, so the Fourth Amendment is largely irrelevant.

Read the Chatrie decision, then research Mosaic Theory as applied to 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

The question isn't about privacy, it is about government surveillance without a warrant, and SCOTUS have clearly stated that collection of location data - both cellphone and vehicular - is controlled by the 4th Amendment.

From Chatrie:

We granted certiorari solely on the question whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment in obtaining Chatrie’s location data, thus declining to consider the exclusionary rule issue. See 607 U. S. 1148 (2026). The disputed Fourth Amendment question divides into two parts. First, did law enforcement officials conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google? We hold that they did because an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his cell phone location data.

Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967), recognized that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” And so we have long held that “property rights are not the sole measure” of a constitutional violation; the Fourth Amendment “protect certain expectations of privacy as well.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64 (1992); Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 304. “When an individual seeks to preserve something as private and his expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,” then governmental “intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search.”
[...]
So too we have recognized, and repeatedly, that the Amendment was designed “to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595 (1948); Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 305. Whatever the form of an attempted incursion, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans’ long-held conviction that no government official should have free access to the most closely kept aspects of their lives. In recent decades, this Court has often confronted the challenge of adhering to those principles in the face of new technologies. “nnovations in surveillance tools” have “enhanced the Government’s capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes.” Ibid. The Court, in response, has sought to “assure[] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34 (2001).

Contrary to the Government’s view, an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information Location History collects about his cell phone’s—meaning his own—movements. The police invade that expectation, and thus conduct a search, when they acquire that information, even though for only a limited period of time and even though via a third-party tech company.

Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.)). As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (opinion of ALITO, J.)). A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.

 

[Lindberg]

Read the Chatrie decision, then research Mosaic Theory as applied to 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

The question isn't about privacy, it is about government surveillance without a warrant.

Explain it to me like I'm five.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I am no constitutional expert. But surely there is something, if not the 4th amendment, that is intended to discourage mass surveillance and warehousing of personal details on people who have committed no crime? Maybe there isn't... just seems like there should be.

There is, and the Supreme Court has made it exceedingly clear, as shown above. Certain individuals seem to want to ignore this, simply because it is expedient.

 

[172andyou]

Explain it to me like I'm five.

You're the lawyer, but my understanding is that currently the state of things is that using flock data after the fact to track a suspect is generally considered legal, and that the ACLU is taking the position (and presumably looking for cases to use to test their position) that the flock network constantly slurping data and not requiring a judge to authorize data usage constitutes warrantless surveillance, which is generally considered to be illegal. If I've got that right, even if both edges are pretty solid, there is a lot of grey in the middle.

My (valueless?) opinion is that I hope the courts lean strongly in the direction of finding such systems to be warrantless searches. This isn't some academic mistrust of the police. There have already been enough cases showing misuse of the system that the mistrust has been earned.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Explain it to me like I'm five.

Read the above. The Supreme Court said it very clearly:

Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.)). As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (opinion of ALITO, J.)). A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.

 

[nauga]

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Former Katy officer faces charges after allegedly using Flock cameras to track ex-wife | Houston Public Media

Sergio Rodriguez was charged with two third-degree felonies including allegedly stalking and misusing official information using Flock license plate readers to track his ex-wife for over six months.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

2nd Milwaukee officer charged with using Flock cameras for stalking

A second Milwaukee police officer has been charged with misusing Flock cameras to stalk two victims.

fox11online.com

Nauga,
and a big flocking mess

 

[StraightnLevel]

My (valueless?) opinion is that I hope the courts lean strongly in the direction of finding such systems to be warrantless searches. This isn't some academic mistrust of the police. There have already been enough cases showing misuse of the system that the mistrust has already been earned.

To be fair to the police - the OP in this thread was an article describing a police chief who himself felt that the system was too intrusive for his community. Let me be clear - I didn't post this to throw rocks at law enforcement - this was a law enforcement official acting in the best interest of the community, just as he should.

 

[wanttaja]

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Former Katy officer faces charges after allegedly using Flock cameras to track ex-wife | Houston Public Media

Sergio Rodriguez was charged with two third-degree felonies including allegedly stalking and misusing official information using Flock license plate readers to track his ex-wife for over six months.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

2nd Milwaukee officer charged with using Flock cameras for stalking

A second Milwaukee police officer has been charged with misusing Flock cameras to stalk two victims.

fox11online.com

Nauga,
and a big flocking mess

Twenty years ago, the wife of the police chief for Tacoma left him. He used departmental resources to track her whereabouts (including aid from officers in his department). Found her in a parking lot with their two young kids, and shot her in the head.

Didn't take Flock to do it, either....

Kids Saw Police Chief Shoot Wife, Kill Self

abcnews.com

Ron Wanttaja

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Twenty years ago, the wife of the police chief for Tacoma left him. He used departmental resources to track her whereabouts (including aid from officers in his department). Found her in a parking lot with their two young kids, and shot her in the head.

Didn't take Flock to do it, either....

Kids Saw Police Chief Shoot Wife, Kill Self

abcnews.com

Ron Wanttaja

Yeah, you can do bad things without the tools. But the tools make it easier to do bad things. With Flock, you don't need fellow officers to be complicit in your stalking scheme, the system will search whatever you ask it to search. That's a tad dangerous, and too easy and too tempting for some malicious individuals to use (IMHO).

 

[Lindberg]

Read the above. The Supreme Court said it very clearly:

This is quoting a decision that related to placing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car.

 

[cowman]

I honestly think this is another case of law not keeping up with technology. Technically these are just cameras in public spaces which is perfectly fine by existing standards. What makes them novel is the ability to process and aggregate data which can potentially invade privacy in ways nobody previously foresaw.

Is there anyone besides law enforcement who is actually in favor of these things? Seems like one of the first issues to come up in years with broad bi-partisan agreement. Everyone hates them as far as I can tell. Here's a site with info and a nice map to show you where they're located https://deflock.org/

 

[StraightnLevel]

This is quoting a decision that related to placing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car.

Apply the clearly stated logic in the context of the Chatrie case, and the meaning is clear.

Schmidt v. Norfolk is likely to get to SCOTUS, and this decision leaves little doubt as to how it would be decided if granted cert.

 

[172andyou]

To be fair to the police - the OP in this thread was an article describing a police chief who himself felt that the system was too intrusive for his community. Let me be clear - I didn't post this to throw rocks at law enforcement - this was a law enforcement official acting in the best interest of the community, just as he should.

Yeah, I'm not making an "all police" statement. But it is also true that while this guy was acting in the best interest of his community, other police sometimes haven't.

And, it's particularly damning that a cop acting in the best interest of his community is recommending to nuke the entire system.

 

[Kitch]

What about the camera, recording ,and tracking device most of us carry around in our pocket daily...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

This is quoting a decision that related to placing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car.

I'll take this statement as being correct. The GPS tracker was probably placed by the police or government- please correct me if my assumption is wrong. These two statements mean that the government can't do these things.
“society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.”

"A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."

I don't think these apply to a corporation doing these things and then providing the information to the government. Some constitutional rights don't apply in the context of private property or private forums, such as protests and free speech, and I think gathering information by a private entity is also falls outside constitutional protection. I can record, using my phone, people doing things in public; flock is doing this on a much larger scale. However, my opinion is subject to change based on facts.

 

[StraightnLevel]

What about the camera, recording ,and tracking device most of us carry around in our pocket daily...

1) Voluntary.
2) Not government owned and controlled.
3) Can be turned off or left at home.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I'll take this statement as being correct. The GPS tracker was probably placed by the police or government- please correct me if my assumption is wrong. These two statements mean that the government can't do these things.
“society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.”

"A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."

I don't think these apply to a corporation doing these things and then providing the information to the government.

Read the rest of the Chatrie decision. The ruling was specifically about government access to information that had been collected and held by a 3rd party.

Contrary to the Government’s view, an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information Location History collects about his cell phone’s—meaning his own—movements. The police invade that expectation, and thus conduct a search, when they acquire that information, even though for only a limited period of time and even though via a third-party tech company.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

"A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."

I don't think these apply to a corporation doing these things and then providing the information to the government.

This feels like the same dilemma of when it came to light that law enforcement was using people's web data from a commercial vendor to build cases against them. They weren't technically collecting the data themselves, they were just buying it from a corporate entity who was doing it, some kind of data broker. The company that collects it and sells it doesn't have the same duty to the public and restrictions that the government does. So the government essentially goes around their ass to get to their elbow to spy on you. A feat of moral gymnastics to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

 

[172andyou]

I'll take this statement as being correct. The GPS tracker was probably placed by the police or government- please correct me if my assumption is wrong. These two statements mean that the government can't do these things.
“society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.”

"A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."

I don't think these apply to a corporation doing these things and then providing the information to the government. Some constitutional rights don't apply in the context of private property or private forums, such as protests and free speech, and I think gathering information by a private entity is also falls outside constitutional protection. I can record, using my phone, people doing things in public; flock is doing this on a much larger scale. However, my opinion is subject to change based on facts.

I would expect one of the arguments the ACLU will make would be that this is an example of the law not keeping up with the tech and that there shouldn't be a line drawn between the police directly surveilling someone and the police hiring someone to surveil someone.

(which is basically what @Arrow Flyer posted at the same time.)

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Read the rest of the Chatrie decision. The ruling was specifically about government access to information that had been collected and held by a 3rd party.

I'm not arguing with you, but this then creates the question how does flock get to do what it does? Probably @172andyou 's comment answers my question- it simply hasn't had the right case to shut it down yet.

 

[172andyou]

I'm not arguing with you, but this then creates the question how does flock get to do what it does? Probably @172andyou 's comment answers my question- it simply hasn't had the right case to shut it down yet.

Yeah, shut it down or regulate it. Then the question becomes, would the regulations themselves be so restrictive that the company can no longer operate profitably.

 

[Lindberg]

The question isn't about privacy . . . .

Read the rest of the Chatrie decision. The ruling was specifically about government access to information that had been collected and held by a 3rd party.

Contrary to the Government’s view, an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information Location History collects about his cell phone’s—meaning his own—movements. The police invade that expectation, and thus conduct a search, when they acquire that information, even though for only a limited period of time and even though via a third-party tech company.

[emphasis mine]

 

[StraightnLevel]

Yeah, shut it down or regulate it. Then the question becomes, would the regulations themselves be so restrictive that the company can no longer operate profitably.

Not to be crass, but so what? The guys running Flock, Axon, etc. know exactly what they are doing, and know the risk of being shut down by legal action. Their technology can be used in other ways that don't compromise Constitutional rights, so they can figure it out and do business within the law.

 

[Kitch]

1) Voluntary.
2) Not government owned and controlled.
3) Can be turned off or left at home.

I'll give you number 1

Are we ruling out all governments or just ours ?

Left at home sure. Turned off not so much. I think we all know even when its off its still on.

Full disclosure I am as anti flock/ govt overreach as it comes. I think they are a horrible idea and way out of bounds and should all be taken down. Flock is just the tip of the iceberg was my point.

 

[172andyou]

Not to be crass, but so what? The guys running Flock, Axon, etc. know exactly what they are doing, and know the risk of being shut down by legal action.

I'm just dispassionately predicting how things could play out.

Their technology can be used in other ways that don't compromise Constitutional rights, so they can figure it out and do business within the law.

Could be. I'm not sure what use cases could be both legal and profitable enough to save the company, but if they find some, then that would avert their crisis.

 

[172andyou]

Left at home sure. Turned off not so much. I think we all know even when its off its still on.

No. That's not how they work. Phones that are off are really off.

 

[Kitch]

No. That's not how they work. Phones that are off are really off.

If I need to put something in a faraday bag so it stops tracking its never off.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I'm just dispassionately predicting how things could play out.

Fair enough.

Could be. I'm not sure what use cases could be both legal and profitable enough to save the company, but if they find some, then that would avert their crisis.

Well, Axon has been making bodycams, tasers and all sorts of law enforcement gear for a long time, so terminating a single data collection product wouldn't seem to be a disaster.

Flock? They could find themselves in trouble.

 

[172andyou]

If I need to put something in a faraday bag so it stops tracking its never off.

Absolutely true.

Related: You don't need to put a phone that's been turned off in faraday cage to stop them from tracking. When they are off they are off.

 

[jsstevens]

And now other companies are stepping into the gap because Flock is the lighting rod that the public sees.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Absolutely true.

Related: You don't need to put a phone that's been turned off in faraday cage to stop them from tracking. When the batteries are removed they are off.

FIFY