Do you support Flock or similar surveillance tech?

[kalvado]

In this day and age, there's no reason someone should have to wait more than a few seconds (if that) at a red light when there's no other traffic.

You are making assumptions of a first world reality (aka people willing and able to do their jobs). I was explained on this very forum that certified and standardized traffic light controllers cost a fortune, were developed when Ronald Reagan was the president - and nobody wants an upgrade. Who cares that ESP32 costs literally pennies and can do much more than 8080 - ESP is an enemy's technology.

[kphoger]

Where did I say "every"?  I don't know anyone going after regular server farms hosting websites and stuff.  They're going after the large data centers that are being used to train and deploy these large AI models, use a metric fuckton of electricity, pollute water, and are causing price hikes and shortages in the consumer electronics market.  The idea that the explosion of data center construction is fueled by an explosion of website expansion is disingenuous.

It seemed to me that |Beltway| was saying he had seen a people online opposing new data centers without actually knowing if they were going to be used for A.I. or not.  As you were arguing against that, it seemed to me that you must be saying such people don't exist, or whatever.  Sorry if you didn't mean that.

Also note that you're defending the Beltway of passenger rail.

I'll defend |Beltway| if I think he has a legitimate point, and in this case I also gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think it's a valid point at all, it's a cheap gotcha based on pedantry. It's more like if someone was spoke out against a proposed new-build eight-lane freeway and someone is like "And yet you live on a street!"

The 'valid point' I was referring to is that people who oppose a new data center because A.I. is evil should first find out if the data center they're opposing is actually going to be used for A.I. or not.  That was the extent that I meant he had a valid point in there somewhere.

[kalvado]

Where did I say "every"?  I don't know anyone going after regular server farms hosting websites and stuff.  They're going after the large data centers that are being used to train and deploy these large AI models, use a metric fuckton of electricity, pollute water, and are causing price hikes and shortages in the consumer electronics market.  The idea that the explosion of data center construction is fueled by an explosion of website expansion is disingenuous.

It seemed to me that |Beltway| was saying he had seen a people online opposing new data centers without actually knowing if they were going to be used for A.I. or not.  As you were arguing against that, it seemed to me that you must be saying such people don't exist, or whatever.  Sorry if you didn't mean that.

Moreover, we have exact same situation in the area - people are blanketly oppose any datacenter. Moreover, developer of the one which triggered the wave explicitly said - a datacenter for local services and local companies. Moreover, governor chimed in with a moratorium on any significant datacenter development (Significant as in - I believe a local college now has problems with their  research-supporting datacenter)

But bait-and-switch is a tried and true tactics as well, of course.

[JayhawkCO]

Who gave Flock cameras that 1 supporting vote?

Someone holding stock in Flock.

This is truly one of those items that has broad (lack of) support across the aisle. Yet our politicians still don't do anything about it. Kinda like Texas making THC products felonies despite 70% support of legalization.

Our representative government often times is anything but.

[JayhawkCO]

Saw this on the Twitterz.

[kalvado]

Who gave Flock cameras that 1 supporting vote?

Someone holding stock in Flock.

This is truly one of those items that has broad (lack of) support across the aisle. Yet our politicians still don't do anything about it. Kinda like Texas making THC products felonies despite 70% support of legalization.

Our representative government often times is anything but.

My impression is that Flock is vastly popular among law enforcement folks. Numbers on how many of those do differ, BLS lists 1.2 million in US working under broad "law enforcement" category. That is 1 out of 275 people in US including newborns. Add those retired but still having same view of things. I can easily see some police officer having interest in roads and reading this forum - both as a hobby and professional aspects of it - and being in favor of flock.

PS. Add 1.8 million of "Other Protective Service Workers" like "Security Guards and Gambling Surveillance Officers" (1.3 million of them!) - a lot of them rely on surveillance, one way or the other...

[JayhawkCO]

Who gave Flock cameras that 1 supporting vote?

Someone holding stock in Flock.

This is truly one of those items that has broad (lack of) support across the aisle. Yet our politicians still don't do anything about it. Kinda like Texas making THC products felonies despite 70% support of legalization.

Our representative government often times is anything but.

My impression is that Flock is vastly popular among law enforcement folks. Numbers on how many of those do differ, BLS lists 1.2 million in US working under broad "law enforcement" category. That is 1 out of 275 people in US including newborns. Add those retired but still having same view of things. I can easily see some police officer having interest in roads and reading this forum - both as a hobby and professional aspects of it - and being in favor of flock.

PS. Add 1.8 million of "Other Protective Service Workers" like "Security Guards and Gambling Surveillance Officers" (1.3 million of them!) - a lot of them rely on surveillance, one way or the other...

I also like wine. But I don't want to force every human in the country to drink it whether they want to or not.

[hotdogPi]

...
It seemed to me that |Beltway| was saying he had seen a people online opposing new data centers without actually knowing if they were going to be used for A.I. or not.  As you were arguing against that, it seemed to me that you must be saying such people don't exist, or whatever.  Sorry if you didn't mean that.

Also note that you're defending the Beltway of passenger rail.

I'll defend |Beltway| if I think he has a legitimate point, and in this case I also gave him the benefit of the doubt.
...

Given that he hasn't posted in this thread yet...

[kphoger]

...
It seemed to me that |Beltway| was saying he had seen a people online opposing new data centers without actually knowing if they were going to be used for A.I. or not.  As you were arguing against that, it seemed to me that you must be saying such people don't exist, or whatever.  Sorry if you didn't mean that.

Also note that you're defending the Beltway of passenger rail.

I'll defend |Beltway| if I think he has a legitimate point, and in this case I also gave him the benefit of the doubt.
...

Given that he hasn't posted in this thread yet...

Brain fart!  SP Cook, of course. 

[kalvado]

Who gave Flock cameras that 1 supporting vote?

Someone holding stock in Flock.

This is truly one of those items that has broad (lack of) support across the aisle. Yet our politicians still don't do anything about it. Kinda like Texas making THC products felonies despite 70% support of legalization.

Our representative government often times is anything but.

My impression is that Flock is vastly popular among law enforcement folks. Numbers on how many of those do differ, BLS lists 1.2 million in US working under broad "law enforcement" category. That is 1 out of 275 people in US including newborns. Add those retired but still having same view of things. I can easily see some police officer having interest in roads and reading this forum - both as a hobby and professional aspects of it - and being in favor of flock.

PS. Add 1.8 million of "Other Protective Service Workers" like "Security Guards and Gambling Surveillance Officers" (1.3 million of them!) - a lot of them rely on surveillance, one way or the other...

I also like wine. But I don't want to force every human in the country to drink it whether they want to or not.

yet you probably want wine availability in most places. Mere presence of that wine store may create temptation for others, etc, etc, and did you think about children?!  (that's why you never see cigarettes in general stores over here, they are locked in non-transparent cabinet and you have to ask)
And after all if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear about Flock!
(tongue firmly in cheek, just in case)

[Rothman]

Who gave Flock cameras that 1 supporting vote?

*reviews Flock footage to find out*

[wxfree]

Here are some proposals for rules around use of a potentially helpful technology.

No sharing
All information is held by the local jurisdiction and is not transferred to the feds or other state or local agency except due to a warrant.  An agency holding information can inform another agency that needs the information so that a warrant can be obtained.  No information goes to the service vendor or other non-governmental agency.  All information not intentionally saved for a valid purpose is deleted automatically after a period of time.

No browsing
No live feeds or just looking around.  No information is made available except as a result of a search for a license plate or location.

Record keeping and reporting
Every search (term and results) is recorded and reviewed by supervisors.  When a search is made for a license plate or an address, the owner must be notified of the time of the search, who conducted it, and the category of reason for the search.  Searches for public spaces such as parks and streets become public information after a period of time.  Searches under warrant are excluded.

Video recording
Every search is recorded on video, camera toward the officer so it doesn't show the screen or keyboard.  All search videos are public record after a period of time.

[kalvado]

Here are some proposals for rules around use of a potentially helpful technology.

No sharing
All information is held by the local jurisdiction and is not transferred to the feds or other state or local agency except due to a warrant.  An agency holding information can inform another agency that needs the information so that a warrant can be obtained.  No information goes to the service vendor or other non-governmental agency.  All information not intentionally saved for a valid purpose is deleted automatically after a period of time.

No browsing
No live feeds or just looking around.  No information is made available except as a result of a search for a license plate or location.

Record keeping and reporting
Every search (term and results) is recorded and reviewed by supervisors.  When a search is made for a license plate or an address, the owner must be notified of the time of the search, who conducted it, and the category of reason for the search.  Searches for public spaces such as parks and streets become public information after a period of time.  Searches under warrant are excluded.

Video recording
Every search is recorded on video, camera toward the officer so it doesn't show the screen or keyboard.  All search videos are public record after a period of time.

That's all great, but exact wording would quickly fall apart. Spirit of these rules may be correct, but exact configuration need a lot of tweaking.... Especially with easy access to locality.

Examples for each line:
 Jurisdiction is a Town of Nowhere, on a crossroad of highways. (is Limon CO still a  control city?) - so state has a lot of legitimate urgent needs. Is there enough bureaucracy in the town to timely process everything?

 We need everyone who was near the accident site, maybe they saw something? ( worse case - they were exposed and need medical attention)

 One casual search, drug dealer is now on alert

Supervisors would gladly rubber stamp "RV" as a reason for search (residence verification for school enrollment, actual cause logged many times)

I am sure better rules may be formulated... I would specifically address how far back can searches go.

[wxfree]

Of course my suggestions are rough approximations, and there's a lot to be changed based on experiences.  To me, the jurisdiction is the governmental agency that had the cameras installed, a county, city, toll road authority, or however.  They presumably have systems in place to process the information or they wouldn't pay for the system.

I would suggest that maybe residency verification is not a legitimate reason for the use of this technology.  Maybe it is, but watching people go in and out of homes for non-criminal investigations seems far over the line.

[NJRoadfan]

NJ's policy is here: https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-12_Updated-Directive-Regulating-Use-of-Automated-License-Plate-Recognition-(ALPR)-Technology.pdf

[MikeTheActuary]

Here are some proposals for rules around use of a potentially helpful technology.

The Connecticut law on ALPDR going into effect in October has the following key points:

• Data retention capped at 21 days, except for records explicitly retained for active legal action
• Data may be shared only within the state or with adjoining states
• Justification for searches must be associated with crimes/offenses under Connecticut law; explicit prohibition of searches for immigration purposes, enforcement of abortion bans, etc.
• Various public reporting requirements for the use of ALPR technology, including provisions for individuals to find out whether they've been searched.

That all seems reasonable to me, although it ignores the big scary concern: even though Flock says the data is owned by individual agencies, Flock still possesses its database.   While laws and contracts theoretically protect the data... there's an element of trust involved that the data won't be used in an extralegal manner.   Do we really want to extend that level of trust?

Beyond that, some other specific points of additional improvement I could see include:

• Searches of data should be limited to exigent circumstances or the constraints of judicial warrants.  If it's not a situation where the powers that be want to go to court, or where a dispatcher can call out information over the radio to coordinate an active search...the data shouldn't be accessed.  Cops shouldn't be able to quietly track their significant others or exes.
• Under current US law, "continuous surveillance" requires a court order, while "intermittent" or "incidental" surveillance may be tolerable without court review.   The line between the two is not well-defined.  Work needs to be done to define that line, and the density of readers clearly limited to "intermittent".
• Private use of ALPRs needs to be considered and constrained.  For example, ALPR tech makes sense...with protections...for toll-collection purposes on private toll roads.  However, HOA Karens probably shouldn't be able to have private Flocks to monitor who's driving through their neighborhoods.
• Allow for use of patrol vehicle mounted ALPRs for automated alerting for BOLOs or insurance/registration enforcement, but not for hoovering surveillance data into databases beyond the provisions you'd expect for fixed location readers.
• I could see ALPR data having some interesting potential uses for traffic / transit / urban planning projects. Some thought needs to be given towards how privacy will be protected / how data could be anonymized before data is used in such a way...if such uses are allowed at all.

[LilianaUwU]

Here are some proposals for rules around use of a potentially helpful technology.

No sharing
All information is held by the local jurisdiction and is not transferred to the feds or other state or local agency except due to a warrant.  An agency holding information can inform another agency that needs the information so that a warrant can be obtained.  No information goes to the service vendor or other non-governmental agency.  All information not intentionally saved for a valid purpose is deleted automatically after a period of time.

No browsing
No live feeds or just looking around.  No information is made available except as a result of a search for a license plate or location.

Record keeping and reporting
Every search (term and results) is recorded and reviewed by supervisors.  When a search is made for a license plate or an address, the owner must be notified of the time of the search, who conducted it, and the category of reason for the search.  Searches for public spaces such as parks and streets become public information after a period of time.  Searches under warrant are excluded.

Video recording
Every search is recorded on video, camera toward the officer so it doesn't show the screen or keyboard.  All search videos are public record after a period of time.

[ZLoth]

The Neighborhood Association forwarded me this article that was published yesterday:

From Community Impact (Richardson):

Richardson Police Chief outlines Flock camera usage in response to community concerns

Richardson Police Chief Gary Tittle gave an overview of the police department's use of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras at the Aug. 10 City Council meeting, including policies on data collection, sharing and searching.

After hearing feedback from council members and concerns from community members, city staff plan to implement further transparency methods to assure residents that the policies are being followed, City Manager Don Magner said.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[kalvado]

Private use of ALPRs needs to be considered and constrained.  For example, ALPR tech makes sense...with protections...for toll-collection purposes on private toll roads.  However, HOA Karens probably shouldn't be able to have private Flocks to monitor who's driving through their neighborhoods.

How are you going to deal with Ring cameras, or even with a freeware running on Karen's PC? Should that be illegal/regulated?
There are quite a few personal and private business security cameras around- cloud and local, and some of those homes can be on busier roads, with cameras inevitably capturing those roads.. .

[kphoger]

How are you going to deal with Ring cameras, or even with a freeware running on Karen's PC? Should that be illegal/regulated?
There are quite a few personal and private business security cameras around- cloud and local, and some of those homes can be on busier roads, with cameras inevitably capturing those roads.. .

Indeed, I once ran across an instance of a field tech claiming to have gotten no answer at a customer's door for their cable appointment, but the customer disputed it because they looked at footage from their neighbor's security camera and it showed that the tech didn't get out of his truck.

[hbelkins]

I'm generally indifferent to Flock cameras. I figure that if I'm on camera every time I enter my local Ace Hardware or Dollar General or Walgreens, or every time I go into Walmart, then I'm not bothered by having my license plate photographed when I pass by a Flock camera in a nearby city or county (my city/county does not have them, and neither do any of the adjoining counties).

That "Have I been Flocked" website doesn't work. I know for a fact that I've driven by multiple Flock cameras, yet my license plate never comes up in the search.

What amuses me is people posting Flock cameras in the "There is NO way that is MUTCD-compliant" Facebook group, complaining about them not being mounted on non-breakaway posts. First, they aren't traffic control devices so they don't belong in an MUTCD-centric group. Second, many of them are mounted on breakaway posts.

That reminds me of a minor thing that bothers me that I need to remember to post to that board.

[JayhawkCO]

That "Have I been Flocked" website doesn't work. I know for a fact that I've driven by multiple Flock cameras, yet my license plate never comes up in the search.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that website refers to if someone has searched the Flock database for your license plate number, not if there are existing pics of it.

[Road Hog]

That "Have I been Flocked" website doesn't work. I know for a fact that I've driven by multiple Flock cameras, yet my license plate never comes up in the search.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that website refers to if someone has searched the Flock database for your license plate number, not if there are existing pics of it.

If a perp is checking, it'll alert him that they're on his trail and make him a flight risk.

[1995hoo]

That "Have I been Flocked" website doesn't work. I know for a fact that I've driven by multiple Flock cameras, yet my license plate never comes up in the search.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that website refers to if someone has searched the Flock database for your license plate number, not if there are existing pics of it.

That's how I understood it as well when I looked at it.

[ModernDayWarrior]

This is truly one of those items that has broad (lack of) support across the aisle. Yet our politicians still don't do anything about it. Kinda like Texas making THC products felonies despite 70% support of legalization.

Our representative government often times is anything but.

Of course, law enforcement is one of the main groups lobbying against marijuana legalization in Texas (and other states as well) so this is really the same issue: the sheer size and power of the police-industrial complex in America and the result that nobody is willing or able to stand up to them.

My own view on this issue is that the people in support of Flock cameras are the same people who read Nineteen Eighty-Four and think "sounds like a great idea, let's do this."