Oshkosh Police chief in the news

Legal debates aside, is there anyone here in favor of them? Just curious.

An idiot who vandalized our local airport was caught using them, so I guess there are upsides...
www.wgem.com

Driver in custody, charged with causing damage to Quincy Regional Airport property

QPD reported being called to the Quincy Regional Airport for a report of property damage from $10,000-$100,000.
www.wgem.com www.wgem.com

I still am not in favor of these things, I don't really see enough of a need for more public safety to justify the privacy risks. There have been numerous cases of police officers abusing them to do things like spy on exes. Also several cases of people being arrested/held at gunpoint/etc because of mistaken identity from flock cameras. I'd be slightly less upset about them if they required a warrant before they could store any data AND police were being trained to be skeptical about flock evidence.

Overall though, I think just about everyone has had enough of being monitored, tracked, and catalogued in nearly every aspect of their lives. Not just with these cameras but almost every piece of software and technology that's used. Everyone hates it, yet response to the public's wishes ranges from nothing to tepid things like all the little disclosures we see pop up on our screens. Sure, you can avoid a lot of it but at this point you almost need to abandon technology and go live in a shack in the woods. There needs to be some tangible pushback... something a little more meaningful than notes telling us about the data they're collecting.
 
Last edited:
jsstevens said:
And now other companies are stepping into the gap because Flock is the lighting rod that the public sees.
Click to expand...
Yes. Part of the reason is that the Flock camera itself sticks out like a sore thumb, so it's immediately in everyone's face as they drive through town.
 
cowman said:
Is there anyone besides law enforcement who is actually in favor of these things?
Click to expand...

My general and immediate answer is almost never. However, having had a missing child for 36 hours, and realizing the utter devastation that parents of missing children feel, that’s a possible exception.

Victims of property and person crimes might be another. The “don’t do bad stuff” is fine until one gets wrongly accused because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if movement patterns are somehow coincidental.

Maybe how DNA evidence is used today, hopefully this will result in responsible use in the future.
 
StraightnLevel said:
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:
Click to expand...
I appreciate the cliff notes breakdown you provided
 
My beef is giving government another tool (that we pay for) that can be turned against innocent people and used by wrong people with evil intentions.

Per AI search:
"What are the historical examples of genocide justified by public safety claims?

Public safety claims have been used to justify genocides such as the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, and the Rohingya genocide".
 
Rick A said:
My beef is giving government another tool (that we pay for) that can be turned against innocent people and used by wrong people with evil intentions.

Per AI search:
"What are the historical examples of genocide justified by public safety claims?

Public safety claims have been used to justify genocides such as the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, and the Rohingya genocide".
Click to expand...
Exactly.

These things always start innocent enough: "We're here to protect you, and you have nothing to worry about if you did nothing wrong. And hey, don't you want to catch bad guys?"
Then ultimately it will end up as: "Predictably, our definition of 'bad guy' has expanded quite a bit and now we're just going to use this however we want, and however the government in charge at the moment feels it makes the most sense."

^And somehow the level of intrusion only ever goes one direction: increasing. Government is not in the business of giving you freedoms and privacy back after they've taken it away. It's giving away too much power.
 
I found this video on the 'Tube a few days ago when I was researching this very thing...I didn't know much about it and wanted to become educated.

Simultaneously, there's a bunch of hub-bub up here in Massachusetts concerning the cameras. A police officer was using Flock data to stalk a woman, for example. This is leading to a number of municipalities up here terminating their contracts or at least putting a hold on them. As a Federal law enforcement officer myself, I can easily see the line drawn from simple data collection to 4th Amendment violation. There are numerous examples of the Flock plate reader cameras capturing much more data than just a plate. That thin blue line sticker on your back glass...or your AOPA license plate frame...or your <insert club here> sticker...even your favorite sports team in order to build an algorithm on you.

Someone above mentioned the Mosaic model and that's exactly what this video gets in to. Take all the little pieces and put them on to one big puzzle and it becomes very easy to find exactly who you are and what you're doing at any moment. And that's not even with the cell phones.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Government is not in the business of giving you freedoms and privacy back after they've taken it away. It's giving away too much power.
Click to expand...
History strongly disagrees with that assertion. The US government abolished slavery, outlawed segregation, legalized the right to unionize, gave people hours a day back via labor/work week laws, gave women the right to vote, expanded voting rights down to citizens aged 18, abolished poll taxes, legalized interracial marriage, legalized same sex marriage, granted citizenship for native americans, created FISA to expose domestic government spying, greatly reduced NSAs ability to do flock-like phone data collection, overturned prohibition, is currently decriminalizing pot, created FOIA to allow citizen oversight and expanded whistleblower protections.

All of use have benefited from some subset of these.

There is a big time pendulum that swings between eras dominated by rights takings and rights restoring actions. But the overarching trend has been toward more freedoms, not fewer. Look at rights 250 years ago compared to today and the differences are stark. Today is vastly more free than 250 years ago.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes. I've seen what they can, and do, do.
Click to expand...
I totally get the "why." And they are a magnificent tool in tracking down bad people. But...there is already a nefarious use being made of these cameras. At this juncture, this Fed does not believe the juice is worth the squeeze.
 
172andyou said:
There is a big time pendulum that swings between eras dominated by rights takings and rights restoring actions. But the overarching trend has been toward more freedoms, not fewer.
Click to expand...
Really? Try any of the following today vs. 50 years ago:

Put an after-market exhaust system on your California car.
Go three years without paying someone to "inspect" your home's septic system.
Collect payment for selling an item for $1,000 (or anything more than $600) without reporting it on your taxes.
Carry $25K in cash onto a commercial flight to buy a car out of state.
Carry a bottle of Pepsi or a small pocketknife onto a commercial flight.
Buy legal cold medicine (pseudoephedrine) without showing ID.
Dig a drainage ditch on your farmland without spending $$$$ on an environmental survey and permitting.
Start up a business that applies nickel, chrome, or silver plating to metal parts.
Smoke a cigarette sitting at the desk in your office (or at a bar, or at a restaurant).
Let your kids ride their bikes around the neighborhood without wearing a helmet.
Ride a motorcycle around your neighborhood without a helmet (state-dependent).
Buy a car that doesn't include nanny-state intervention technology and remote monitoring.
Buy a beer for an 18-year-old kid who just signed up for the military.
 
172andyou said:
History strongly disagrees with that assertion. The US government abolished slavery, outlawed segregation, legalized the right to unionize, gave people hours a day back via labor/work week laws, gave women the right to vote, expanded voting rights down to citizens aged 18, abolished poll taxes, legalized interracial marriage, legalized same sex marriage, granted citizenship for native americans, created FISA to expose domestic government spying, greatly reduced NSAs ability to do flock-like phone data collection, overturned prohibition, is currently decriminalizing pot, created FOIA to allow citizen oversight and expanded whistleblower protections.

All of use have benefited from some subset of these.

There is a big time pendulum that swings between eras dominated by rights takings and rights restoring actions. But the overarching trend has been toward more freedoms, not fewer. Look at rights 250 years ago compared to today and the differences are stark. Today is vastly more free than 250 years ago.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree on a lot of the cases you name. But I'm pretty sure if I offered my thoughts on why, I'd get the thread locked :)

Take a freedom to defend yourself that's actually meaningful like 2A. Are there many cities or states that infringed on it and subsequently gave it back without legal challenge/being required to? IMO, they'll "give you" freedoms that are socially popular and don't actually matter to them (E.g., who you marry). They will however fight tooth-and-nail over things that actually might reduce their power over you (e.g., FISA/FISC) to try to leave their surveillance powers intact. But I'll have to leave that one there and continue that on DM so as not to lock up this very fun-to-follow thread :)
 
Lindberg said:
This is quoting a decision that related to placing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car.
Click to expand...
Right, so we go from, "Hey, let's put a tracker on a person's car" to "Hey, let's just track every single movement EVERYONE makes, forever, then we don't need to single anyone out."

There is, in my humble opinion, a relatively simple solution to this. Your network of cameras has the same permissions to track and report on vehicles that the police do. It's just a software change. That won't fly, though, because something that far short of total blanket surveillance would not be profitable.
 
cowman said:
Legal debates aside, is there anyone here in favor of them? Just curious.
Click to expand...
There are applications where I'd favor them. E.G.: We know 2017 Grey Honda Accord, license XYZ was involved in a crime. Use flock to track that specific car BEGINNING when it was identified as a suspect vehicle." But storing the information for every vehicle that rolls past a camera for a week or 30 days? Naah.
 
ktup-flyer said:
A certain someone is developing a GPS device that will active a plate flipper within a certain distance of a flock camera. Just saying
Click to expand...
That won't matter much. The cameras are storing ANYTHING that is individually identifiable to a vehicle. I named a few examples above already.
 
paint ball guns to blind the cameras

really bright flashes of light to blind the cameras (i.e., burn out the receptors) - ok, that might be considered vandalism

people swapping cars

I'm reminded of the Mad magazine bits about cops trying to use a patrol car paint scheme that would blend in and everyone switching to something else (from way Way WAAAAY long ago)
 
DaleB said:
Your network of cameras has the same permissions to track and report on vehicles that the police do. It's just a software change. That won't fly, though, because something that far short of total blanket surveillance would not be profitable.
Click to expand...
...and therein lies the real problem. Flock went around to hundreds (thousands?) of municipalities and businesses and sold them on really, really cheap "camera" solutions, but with a contract that they hoped nobody would read. A whole lot of people never actually read the terms, and once people found out what was happening, the surveillance system was already in place and collecting data.
 
cowman said:
Is there anyone besides law enforcement who is actually in favor of these things?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of people in this country. I'm certain there are plenty of folks in the "you have nothing to fear if you haven't done anything wrong" camp who think this is a fantastic tool for law enforcement to use to catch bad guys, and they won't see it otherwise until it's misused in a way that affects them personally.
 
KE5BM said:
I totally get the "why." And they are a magnificent tool in tracking down bad people. But...there is already a nefarious use being made of these cameras. At this juncture, this Fed does not believe the juice is worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
There are nefarious uses of every tool. Search warrants get abused. Cops have murdered people with their duty weapons. The good far outweighs the bad.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Correct. Now add in some ADS-B data, and it's a totalitarian's dream system.
Click to expand...
Now flock cameras catch and track wi-fi and Bluetooth signals in addition to the camera aspect.

Now, without a warrant or traceable and trackable justification, officers have surveilled ‘we the people’ in violation of our constitutional rights.
 
rockyfatcat said:
Now flock cameras catch and track wi-fi and Bluetooth signals in addition to the camera aspect.

Now, without a warrant or traceable and trackable justification, officers have surveilled ‘we the people’ in violation of our constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

No amount of "effectiveness" or "efficiency" excuses totalitarian fascism - and that is precisely what these systems deliver. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot would heartily approve.
 
Lindberg said:
There are nefarious uses of every tool. Search warrants get abused. Cops have murdered people with their duty weapons. The good far outweighs the bad.
Click to expand...
The good far outweighs the bad is an opinion, and irrelevant. American government was created specifically with defined and very limited powers in order to guarantee the freedom of its' citizens from tyrannical government control of its' population (an ugly possibility confirmed by history and current examples). "Hoping" tyranny could never happen here should never be a strategy. But apparently it is a popular belief.

Thankfully, in the case of America many citizens are be aware that an individuals' definition of "good" and "bad" and what the government should do about it is nothing more than consensus based personal opinions and perceptions. In the example of Flock Cameras and other modern methods of government controlled mass surveillance being implemented without prior consent of the citizens which will be watched over 24/7/365 "for their safety", the opinions of the surveiled are becoming more evident. A consensus appears to be forming that they (we) don't like it, and don't desire to be watched over like little children for the latest government provided answer to improve our personal safety!

I believe government has evolved into a large industry that in many examples first creates the poison, and then grows larger to supply the antidote. TSA is my favorite example of what's implemented to help us never goes away.
 
strikes2k said:
That's why it's important that this issue goes through the courts to create some guardrails. It's not the company that's the issue. It's the tech and how it's used.
Click to expand...
We need to say its ok to collect the data, and make the police get a search warrant before a judge before allowing the unrestrained use by police.

I am not a criminal. I have nothing to hide. Social media is full of police being directed to stop a misread license plate and people accused of crimes based upon being in an area based upon flock data. When in court they have proven with dash cams that they weren't the perp.

When did we change the laws in this country to make us prove we are not guilty?
 
Kitch said:
If I need to put something in a faraday bag so it stops tracking its never off.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I have one but never thought to put the phone in it.
 
Rick A said:
The good far outweighs the bad is an opinion, and irrelevant. American government was created specifically with defined and very limited powers in order to guarantee the freedom of its' citizens from tyrannical government control of its' population (an ugly possibility confirmed by history and current examples). "Hoping" tyranny could never happen here should never be a strategy. But apparently it is a popular belief.

Thankfully, in the case of America many citizens are be aware that an individuals' definition of "good" and "bad" and what the government should do about it is nothing more than consensus based personal opinions and perceptions. In the example of Flock Cameras and other modern methods of government controlled mass surveillance being implemented without prior consent of the citizens which will be watched over 24/7/365 "for their safety", the opinions of the surveiled are becoming more evident the consensus appears to be they don't like it, and don't desire to be watched over like little children for the latest government provided methods of allegedly paying for increasing their personal safety!

I believe government has evolved into a large industry that in many examples first creates the poison, and then grows larger to supply the antidote. Of course, always with the reason it's needed "for our safety".
Click to expand...
Ok! Go get a f-ing warrant
 
Rick A said:
The good far outweighs the bad is an opinion, and irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's literally my opinion. Which is what was asked for. How is it irrelevant?
Rick A said:
American government was created specifically with defined and very limited powers in order to guarantee the freedom of its' citizens from tyrannical government control of its' population (an ugly possibility confirmed by history and current examples). "Hoping" tyranny could never happen here should never be a strategy. But apparently it is a popular belief.
Click to expand...
Non sequitor.
Rick A said:
Thankfully, in the case of America many citizens are be aware (sic) that an individuals' definition of "good" and "bad" and what the government should do about it is nothing more than consensus based personal opinions and perceptions.
Click to expand...
Consensus based on personal opinions and perceptions is how democracy works, no?
Rick A said:
In the example of Flock Cameras and other modern methods of government controlled mass surveillance being implemented without prior consent of the citizens which will be watched over 24/7/365 "for their safety", the opinions of the surveiled are becoming more evident.
Click to expand...
Flock cameras are being implemented at the behest of elected officials. If that counts as being done "without prior consent of the citizens," then everything government does is "without prior consent of the citizens."
Rick A said:
A consensus appears to be forming that they (we) don't like it, and don't desire to be watched over like little children for the latest government provided answer to improve our personal safety!
Click to expand...
Not liking it is an opinion, and, according to you, irrelevant.
Rick A said:
I believe government has evolved into a large industry that in many examples first creates the poison, and then grows larger to supply the antidote.
Click to expand...
Another opinion?
 
kyleb said:
There are applications where I'd favor them. E.G.: We know 2017 Grey Honda Accord, license XYZ was involved in a crime. Use flock to track that specific car BEGINNING when it was identified as a suspect vehicle." But storing the information for every vehicle that rolls past a camera for a week or 30 days? Naah.
Click to expand...
That defeats much of the purpose. Tracking a vehicle once you know it is a suspect vehicle is only a subset of the use cases. For example, a convenience store is robbed and the clerk is killed. The cameras can tell you what vehicles came and left in the timeframe of the crime, actually identifying suspects who would otherwise be a complete mystery. Then you have all the tools in your arsenal to locate them. If you can track that vehicle, you might even be able to locate the perpetrator before you know his identity.
 
Lindberg said:
That defeats much of the purpose. Tracking a vehicle once you know it is a suspect vehicle is only a subset of the use cases
Click to expand...
Yes. That would be the subset that is allowed under our Constitution.

The 4th Amendment is not a suggestion, nor is it "non sequitor" as you stated above.
 
Lindberg said:
That defeats much of the purpose. Tracking a vehicle once you know it is a suspect vehicle is only a subset of the use cases. For example, a convenience store is robbed and the clerk is killed. The cameras can tell you what vehicles came and left in the timeframe of the crime, actually identifying suspects who would otherwise be a complete mystery. Then you have all the tools in your arsenal to locate them. If you can track that vehicle, you might even be able to locate the perpetrator before you know his identity.
Click to expand...
Yep. But unless we want a monitored state 24/7/365…
 
172andyou said:
That's the part that's not settled yet. But, yes, the ACLU is saying the same thing and intends to test that claim in court.
Click to expand...
It's not just the ACLU. There is a long list of amicus briefs that have been filed in support of the plaintiff, and these are groups that rarely appear on the same side of an issue.

When was the last time you saw the Cato Institute and ACLU in full agreement?
 
Lindberg said:
There are nefarious uses of every tool. Search warrants get abused. Cops have murdered people with their duty weapons. The good far outweighs the bad.
Click to expand...
It's not just "nefarious" use that's troubling, though.

When I think nefarious I think about the police spying on their ex-GF'/ex-BF's. Clearly a case of misuse and not its intended purpose, and with the proper safeguards you can ensure they don't do that (whether they will put in those safeguards is another question, few people like voluntarily curbing their own power).

What worries many people (me included) is that what is considered "nefarious" may be very different from law enforcement versus citizens, and that can and will change over time. What constitutes acceptable use of the surveillance system today is not what will constitute acceptable use 5, 10, 20 years from now. After we see it work for, say, catching murderers -- why not use it to catch people who committed burglary? How about simple battery? How about domestic abuse? Now how about vandalism? Now, can we use it to determine who the associates are of all those people above? How long until anyone who did something considered objectionable by their municipality is 'fair game' to be tracked down with cameras?

Personally I have no doubt that the temptation to abuse the technology and use it for increasingly invasive spying will be too much for law enforcement and politicans to resist. The best bet is to foresee that outcome and stop the technology from being deployed and normalized to begin with.

Also (just my opinion): Surveillance technology is passive, and can be abused 'under the radar' so to speak, so that you don't even know it's occurring. That's different from things like a policeman illegally using their service weapon, or someone gaining access to property via a search warrant that was obtained improperly. Those you actually have grounds to challenge it because something bad happened. How can you tell if someone is spying on you and hold them to account?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top