Motorola has LPR cameras as well as Vehicle Manager hosted systems, nationwide.

Speed trailers, dump trucks and connex boxes sitting long-term in roadside construction projects, ...

I won't be surprised to see birdhouses soon that aren't really birdhouses.

For safety. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

- - - - - -

HRK: Email me sometime, please and thank you.

Done!

I expect that this issue will be ending up in the Supreme Court quite soon, and these surveillance cameras will be deemed unconstitutional. Whether or not that solves the problem remains to be seen, but I won't hold my breath. Technology (both bad and good) is here to stay.

My "evil cartoon brain" came alive last night and wondered...

S'pose I had a business across the street from the local police station, town hall, courthouse, etc. And the property had a post on it. And I had funds to buy/subscribe to the Flock business. And I pointed the camera at said police station / town hall / courthouse...

I'm figuring the local police and town officials would suddenly not be such big Flock fans. But that's just a guess.

Make some realistic takes and put them in trees and light poles.

Quick article on FoxNews regarding ALPRs.

quote:

How it works:

ALPRs photograph every passing car, capturing details like license plate number, make, model, color, and other distinguishing features like roof racks, bumper stickers, and scratches to create what Flock calls a "vehicle fingerprint."

This information is then uploaded to a searchable database that can be shared with other agencies when the owning department enables it, typically without a warrant.

Privacy concerns abound.

quote:

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) proposed the "Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act" this week to prohibit the federal government from purchasing or using mass tracking tools, in addition to banning states from using federal funding for the same systems.

Saying we need to "ban these dadgum" things, Burchett argues the cameras are warrantless surveillance tools that violate the Fourth Amendment, saying that Americans should never choose between safety and liberty.

Let's add an article on Military.com:

quote:

"Flock’s core business model is to trade people’s privacy for profits, and the more location data they have to trade, the more money they make."

And perhaps add another case of Flock abuse:

quote:

A Sumter County Sheriff’s Office detective has been arrested and terminated after investigators say she improperly accessed multiple law enforcement databases for personal reasons.

{snip}

Investigators said the information was sought in connection with the ex-wife of Almany’s husband

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
Let's add an article on Military.com:

quote:

"Flock’s core business model is to trade people’s privacy for profits, and the more location data they have to trade, the more money they make."

And perhaps add another case of Flock abuse:

quote:

A Sumter County Sheriff’s Office detective has been arrested and terminated after investigators say she improperly accessed multiple law enforcement databases for personal reasons.

{snip}

Investigators said the information was sought in connection with the ex-wife of Almany’s husband

The misuse of information accessible by the Sheriff's Department detective was reported, investigated, determined to be in violation of the law and police. She was arrested and her employment was terminated, so what else would you want?

Reasonable restrictions can be violated by bad cops that access and use things like criminal history information, property booked as evidence can be stolen, bad cops can steal from drug dealers. All of these things can happen, but can also be dealt with through the administrative and criminal process. Is the answer to not have criminal history systems? Should police not have the ability to recover and book potential evidence or investigate drug dealers?

It's one thing to mismanage things that police can and do use legitimately to accomplish their mission and it's something to deny them the resources because a few bad cops abuse their authority. License plate readers provide a valuable service to the community and recognizing their ability to assist law enforcement in finding and apprehending offenders, shouldn't be confused with misuse.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
The sergeant said he had video footage of this woman taking the package from the victim's porch. If he was just "fishing" for what he hoped would be an incriminating admission and no such evidence existed, there's no way this case (alleging the theft of $25.00 in property) would make it to trial assuming she didn't admit to the act. If she corroborated her admission of guilt? Even then, your belief that this case would cost her "...tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees", is baseless.

Are you a lawyer or a cop?

Dealing with being falsely accused of a crime is a nightmare scenario in today's America.

The only people not harmed, are the cops who have immunity, and the lawyers who profit from it regardless.

quote:

If he was just "fishing" for what he hoped would be an incriminating admission and no such evidence existed, there's no way this case (alleging the theft of $25.00 in property) would make it to trial

You are absolutely correct about that. Because they would have offered her a plea deal which she would have been compelled to take. Because the financial realities of a trial would destroy the life of a person who is not wealthy.

You're stating as "fact" things that simply aren't true. You have no idea if the case would even be filed (over a $25.00 theft) WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE ACCUSED TOOK THE PACKAGE, BESIDES HER BEING IN THE AREA! If there WAS a Ring camera that recorded her doing the theft, would you object to that too?

I'm not a lawyer or "a cop" now (I retired in 2008), but I've been a subject matter expert (mostly for indigent defendants) on police practices for more than a decade. There's a difference between acting in good faith to properly investigate a crime, doing due diligence, and "falsely" vs wrongly accusing someone of a crime. I'm as much of a citizen as you are and because I worked in law enforcement, doesn't mean I'm immune to being victimized by criminals (just like you). Your answer: Stop the police from investigating, because they might do something wrong!

"...the financial realities of a trial would destroy the life of a person who is not wealthy." Please! You don't even know if this case (for a $25.00 loss) would even go to trial! In all probability the prosecutor and certainly the judge (if he/she is any kind of real judge) would dismiss the matter due to insufficient evidence. You make a lot of ridiculous assumptions based on your ignorance of the law (especially burden of proof matters), and leaps concerning what the government can do and what private entities have a right to do with publicly available information. Don't want companies recording things that happen in public? Are you going to prohibit your neighbors from having a Ring camera system, because it will record people and vehicles passing by on the sidewalk and street?

You, I, and our communities get the kind of public services WE deserve, and that includes the quality of police work. If the officer used a ruse to see if this woman would admit to (and provide corroboration/return the missing items) the theft, that kind of a "lie" is permissible for a reason. Suggesting evidence exists can and does can and DOES lead to believable, credible, and RELIABLE admissions of guilt, IF done properly. What you ignore is the fact that this $25.00 theft required investigation regardless of the fact that it was in and of itself a minor crime. Small towns don't frequently have the serious crimes that you claim to be concerned about (ie: rapes, abductions, and murders), so learning how to do investigations, PROPER interviews and interrogations, and using court approved tactics. There IS a difference between being "falsely" accused and merely being asked accusatory questions as part of an investigative process. If the officer here went over the line and received discipline because of it, I don't have a problem with that. Saying that the police should be denied the ability to review publicly available information (such as recordings of people and things in the public space), ignores reality: If any of us walk or drive in public, we're SEEN by those that share the space with us, INCLUDING THE POLICE.

If the police misuse their authority to access information, they can and should be subject to discipline and prosecution, just as if they'd blatantly misuse their authority to detain, search, or seize (arrest) persons or property. In the cases of abuse pointed out here, consequences did follow such abuse, but if you can't see the difference between these matters and cases where those who DID COMMIT CRIMES as serious as MURDER were apprehended as a direct result of using video information, you're denying there IS a difference between use and abuse. It applies with technology just like it does with interviews, interrogations, and confession evidence. It would be disastrous for our criminal justice system if police were denied the ability to question people about criminal matters, just because those doing the questioning might not do it properly.

Using best practices matters just as much while simply talking to people as it does using technology. It's not being a "statist" to support what's needed to provide public safety in a manner that conforms to the protections recognized by our Constitution.

I'm not terribly worried about the local sheriff tracking his ex-wife, or even when I pass a local squad car that my recent routing that day pops up. It is highly unlikely that either scenario harms me, even though it would be offensive and/or illegal.

The issue is akin to the 4473 database that BATFE keeps. Or my state keeping a database of my buys since I use a ccw instead of a background check.

A large database provide many opportunities for runaway authorities to greatly violate our liberties in the future. Nobody in government should know I own a gun, and likewise they should never know my movements. Not until some event raises sufficient suspicion that they get a warrant.

But I'm also one of those people who finds the $10k bank reporting greatly offensive. Again, absent outside evidence to suspect me of financial crimes, they have no right to gather all my financial information.

To me, if local police lose the use of Flock type of data, it is one of the dangers of liberty. The local thug can buy a gun at the gun store if he isn't yet a prohibited person. That's a risk of liberty, which is acceptable compared to what a Soviet or Stasi style police state would be.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
The misuse of information accessible by the Sheriff's Department detective was reported, investigated, determined to be in violation of the law and police. She was arrested and her employment was terminated, so what else would you want?

I think that's all that can be done in that case. I have no objections to the course of action.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
License plate readers provide a valuable service to the community and recognizing their ability to assist law enforcement in finding and apprehending offenders, shouldn't be confused with misuse.

As I stated earlier in the thread: people in your profession like Flock because it's a tool that can be used FOR them; we regular people don't like Flock because it's a tool very easily used against us.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
I'm not terribly worried about the local sheriff tracking his ex-wife, or even when I pass a local squad car that my recent routing that day pops up. It is highly unlikely that either scenario harms me, even though it would be offensive and/or illegal.

The issue is akin to the 4473 database that BATFE keeps. Or my state keeping a database of my buys since I use a ccw instead of a background check.

A large database provide many opportunities for runaway authorities to greatly violate our liberties in the future. Nobody in government should know I own a gun, and likewise they should never know my movements. Not until some event raises sufficient suspicion that they get a warrant.

But I'm also one of those people who finds the $10k bank reporting greatly offensive. Again, absent outside evidence to suspect me of financial crimes, they have no right to gather all my financial information.

To me, if local police lose the use of Flock type of data, it is one of the dangers of liberty. The local thug can buy a gun at the gun store if he isn't yet a prohibited person. That's a risk of liberty, which is acceptable compared to what a Soviet or Stasi style police state would be.

Yes, it's not about how easy it makes it for law enforcement to find violations or criminals with outstanding warrants, we all know that would be of benefit.

It's about the system subjecting innocent individuals to monitoring for the use of governments and with AI data centers the future holds massive assimilation of data in order to achieve the ultimate digital database.

How it's used is problematic, and the best way to keep it from including tracking information is to stop the tracking of All Americans. Where I go, when I go, how I drive is none of any law enforcements business unless the observe me doing things I shouldn't with my vehicle, IE Speeding, or, have a warrant.

Without those, leave us alone...

A police state doesn't stop being a police state because the police say it's helpful.

I expect actually getting rid of these cameras and system will be a process that winds up taking years.

Since they are already here now, I say we get the ball rolling on getting them gone. But in the meantime, lets use the hell out of them to deport the lions share of fuzzy farging foreigners the hell out of this country. This is precisely why dems don't like them. They will be incredibly helpful with finding and flinging... er uh... make that deporting the new parasites from our midst.

I'd much rather deal with the suveillance/4th amendment issues with less mohommeds around. Let's ultimately be rid of the system but I say we use what's there already and get the job done first.

I want these jihadists to be left to wonder what fell on them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 83v45magna,

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
License plate readers provide a valuable service to the community and recognizing their ability to assist law enforcement in finding and apprehending offenders, shouldn't be confused with misuse.

As I stated earlier in the thread: people in your profession like Flock because it's a tool that can be used FOR them ; we regular people don't like Flock because it's a tool very easily used against us.

Who's "them"??? I'm retired from law enforcement now, but I was as much "regular people" as you when I was a cop, when I retired from LE to become an investigative and subject matter resource for defendants charged with serious criminal offenses, and now that I've retired from both jobs. I'm a CITIZEN just like you. My family, friends, neighbors, and associates (including criminal defense attorneys) are all "regular people", that can be victimized by those who prey on the innocent. I don't like being "spied upon", but I know that law enforcement resources are limited and cops don't have time to just sit in an office reviewing videos of cars passing by, unless there's a damn good reason for it (like trying to identify a serious offender that's leaving the area of a felony offense). This is why automated license plate readers are set up to scan for stolen vehicle and those that are wanted for serious crimes or involving in missing persons cases. Cops have every right to just run plates at random to do the same thing, but it's not practical considering what else they have to do with their time, and LPRs do it more efficiently.

Law enforcement personnel using video equipment for legitimate follow-up on crimes AGAINST US (you, me, other law abiding citizens that have been victimized) aren't using these tools for personal benefit. They're using the tools at their disposal because WE have entrusted them to investigate crimes, identify, apprehend violators, and bring those responsible for these violations to justice (the courts). We've got laws that prohibit acts from theft to murder, but if we don't have people (regular people) that are employed to enforce those laws, they're just words on paper.

I'm as much a "regular" person that makes up this community as you are and just as subject to being victimized or having someone I care about being victimized as you. Being snooped on by having my license plate read/recorded when I haven't committed any wrongdoing? I'm not worried about it, as long as we (the regular people) have and appreciate the controls we have on our representative government.

Who’s “them?” Them is law enforcement, as widely understood. Flock is a tool used FOR (and by) LE.

But we’re learning more about this whole thing now, and learning that “them” includes data brokers and marketers and people who would sell the data collected for use, effectively, against the general population.

My statement wasn’t intended as a personal jab directly at you; please don’t take it that way.

None of us likes to be spied on, including you, as you’ve stated. Capturing, logging, recording, and even selling the data/information grabbed by this mass surveillance system is just that. Being snooped on when we haven’t committed any wrongdoing DOES worry the large lot of us, regardless of any presumed controls on representative government.

quote:

565.227. Stalking, second degree, penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of stalking in the second degree if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, disturbs, or follows with the intent to disturb another person.

Flock is purposely following me, and if they're selling my data disturbing me via all of the unwanted phone calls, text messages, and emails I receive from marketers who purchase that data.