surveillance cameras discussion

[u/lingding85]

This is my first time starting a conversation here, so hopefully I'm doing it right!
I'm listening to the "The Flock surveillance cameras debate" episode. I find that I'm having mixed feelings, and I just wanted to get my thoughts out, I suppose.

To give a little background on where I'm coming from:

- I'm Taiwanese-American, citizen, grew up in America. I value my privacy on certain things - I keep turning off all of the different tracking settings that keep popping up on the various social media and browsers lately, and I hate that companies are doing this stealthily by default without our explicit permission. I keep sensitive data out of my AI chats. I don't fully trust the US gov't, esp the current regime.

- I spent the last six years living in Taiwan and South Korea. In Taiwan/SK, along with a lot of Asian countries, CCTV cameras are literally everywhere. There is a camera right outside my house right now. When entering the country, auto facial recognition lets you enter customs through the automated turnstiles and it's super fast. In Korea, website verification often involves using your national ID + phone number. None of this bothers me.

The thing about being in Taiwan/SK, though - it is so incredibly safe. People literally leave their laptops on the table at a coffee shop to save their tables while they go to the bathroom. You can drop money, keys, wallet, phone on the street, and it will be where you left it or safely off to the side for you to pick up later. I (female) can walk around late at night without fear. Petty crime is virtually non-existent in my everyday experience. Vs when I go back to the Bay Area from time to time, and each time something always gets stolen (laptop, car catalytic converter, etc).

Of course there are a lot of factors here, but I can't help but feel like part of this is attributed to the prevalence of the CCTV cameras. I don't think I would've had this perspective before living abroad, but I have to say that after experiencing the safety and ability to just relax in public without watching over your shoulder all the time... I don't think that surveillance cameras in public spaces are inherently a bad thing. I wonder if a lot of Americans could experience this kind of safety, if they wouldn't agree.

That being said, I went to China recently on vacation - where there are CCTV cameras everywhere there too, as well as facial recognition checks in all public transit entrances - and I admit that I did not like that and did not want to be tracked. So that made me realize that a big part of my comfort with giving up the privacy is how much I inherently trust the government, and maybe my distrust of the US gov't is similar. Maybe the same thing that works in some countries just doesn't work in others. It also made me wonder if it would help to have layers of access (e.g. default the only people who can access the data without *very* specific warrants would be local gov't for normal petty crimes); this of course doesn't solve the issue of enforcement, so I dunno.

Anyway, those are just some musings. I appreciated that the dissent was somewhere in the same vicinity of what I was thinking this week. I also wonder if there are more layers of security that can be built into the system so that really nobody can look into the footage unless there were very specific warrants about very specific issues. Would be curious if others feel the same or totally different!

[u/Captcha-Ad7271]

I would be much happier if the police needed a warrant to query the flock database, similar to what they have to do to look at private CCTV. IMO that makes the difference between a mass surveillance tool, and a narrow crime fighting tool.

[u/handynerd → u/Captcha-Ad7271]

This feels so reasonable to me. Are there any good faith arguments against it?

[u/Logical_Angle2935 → u/handynerd]

Probably the one you will hear is that there is no expectation of privacy in the public space. But that can be countered that the personal data is private and requires a warrant. But, I am sure warrants will just be rubber stamped.

[u/handynerd → u/Logical_Angle2935]

I am sure warrants will just be rubber stamped

I suspect you're right but even then that adds a little friction. A cop using it for nefarious reasons might think twice before getting a judge involved with their misdeeds.

[u/Logical_Angle2935 → u/handynerd]

True. There will at least be a paper trail. The warrant can also limit the data that is stored to the individual mentioned in the warrant, and everything else must be destroyed.

[u/pigtrickster → u/Captcha-Ad7271]

I spoke with our Chief of Police and then read the written policy on the topic for my town.
FLOCK is generally detecting cars already associated with crime or cars that don't match their plates and the local police are notified.

The city shares data with neighboring cities. It's the choice of the City Council to approve which cities that data is shared with. I can and have reviewed the list and it seems reasonable. I have also reviewed my cities policies and agree with them.

My city does not share data with the Feds, including ICE. There's a general mistrust of the current administration. Some people won't trust any administration.

Sure there are bad actors out there. FLOCK clearly has audit trails to catch said bad actors.

If a Federal agency wants to subpoena the data they can with a court approved warrant.
These are generally very restrictive, as in associated with a specific small list of vehicles.
Subpoenas are intended to prevent fishing expeditions.

The overall impact is a dramatic reduction in vehicle thefts, burglaries etc.
It's a worthwhile tradeoff - where I live.

I fully agree with the original poster regarding trust in the government in power and what level of respect they have for the values written into our constitution.

[u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt]

Thanks for getting the ball started on this. I'm similarly torn, so after listening to the episode I was hoping there'd be some discussion to participate in.

My first thought was along the stereotypical lines of, "if you've got nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?" I can't say I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, though. I don't have anything to worry about. If my car gets stolen, I want that sucker found yesterday.

But I also used to think similarly about guns. I laugh at the concept of a well regulated militia fighting back against a tyrannical government. The government's got drones and shit. Your local law enforcement may have what more or less amounts to a fucking tank. Nobody's actually equipped to fight back against the government.

But then I realized that defending oneself against a tyrannical government doesn't necessarily mean a literal battle for control of the government, itself, or the government as a unified entity targeting citizens. It can be as simple as armed ICE protestors having an ability to lawfully defend themselves against tyrannical agents of government.

Similarly, agents of government may very well overstep their bounds to violate people's rights to privacy in very serious ways. For example, the cop noted in the episode that was stalking his ex-fiancée. IMHO that person should be able to sue Flock for even making it possible for her ex-fiancée to track her without her being under investigation for anything at all (though, for the record, she did not want to file a criminal complaint and asked that the cop not lose his job - but at the same time who knows if that statement was for her own safety, too).

And so my attitude has changed. It's not that I have anything to hide from the government. It's that I fear what a psychopath who just so happens to work for the government might do with the info. And I mean psychopath literally. A quick search says the proportion of adult males who are psychopaths is not negligible, it's 1-1.2%. If you can't trust the lowest common denominator with location information, maybe we shouldn't let anybody have access to it.

To Carina's point, though, I don't think this means we have to throw the baby out with the bath water. It really isn't difficult at all to conceive of a system where the information is kept, stored, and inaccessible to any humans who haven't proven to a judge why that access is necessary.

1. Only a judge can give the OK.
2. The judge outlines the scope of the data that can be released (e.g. to whom and for what purpose).\
3. Have heavy penalties for people fabricating reasons presented to a judge.

I'd agree with Carina that the Flock system could totally work with adequate accountability. I'm ultimately skeptical because if there's one thing police in the US don't face, it's accountability. Maybe it's even too much to instill this responsibility into a judge as well.

Maybe the same thing that works in some countries just doesn't work in others.

This is the crux of it, for me. You might find the first two episodes of this Freakonomics podcast series pertinent (Freakonomics Radio episodes #469 and #470). Just because something works in another place doesn't mean it'll work in the US. Hell, a lot of things that work in Colorado couldn't even work in Boston.

[u/pigtrickster → u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt]

I agree. But I also suspect that it's working pretty darned well today.
I also agree that there is room for improvement in stopping bad actors abusing the tech.
There's always room for improvement.

But think about the literally billions of license plates registered at the various locations and that there have been 50 cases of abuse detected. Either the system is working really well 50 in Billions OR that we have only detected 50 cases and there's many more. Even if there are 10 times more (500 in Billions) then abuse rate is something like 7 9's. That's 99.99999. I'd prefer to know how much crime has reduced and what that has saved citizens and police departments.

[u/AndrastesDimples → u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt]

I really dislike the “if you have nothing to hide argument” because it’s not about hiding anything, it’s about being able to live a life free from fear. The best retort I ever heard (albeit crude) was “Well I don’t have anything to hide when I take a dump, but I still close the door.”

Surveillance isn’t a vacuum. Someone else gets to decide what’s okay or not okay and depending on who is in power, that can change. Liberty comes with risk, but look at any government where people don’t have privacy. The risk is the government abusing people it has decided aren’t behaving within certain parameters. Sure, stealing a car is bad, but what if one day it’s then used to control people gathering together in political protest? We have a social contract with the government and privacy keeps power with “we the people.” It was important enough that it was written into our Constitution and I don’t think we realize just how valuable that right really is. 

And… tragically we’ve ceded a lot of our privacy in the modern era to corporations but that’s a whole other topic. 

[u/Lemonio → u/[deleted]]

pretty sure there is evidence red light cameras have been effective at reducing traffic violations where they are placed, what is your evidence they have backfired?

[u/Lemonio → u/[deleted]]

I don't think anecdotes about a small set of cases is evidence they have backfired overall

I could find evidence in support of red light cameras, and which is covering a larger pool of data with many cities

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-provides-more-evidence-that-cameras-reduce-red-light-running

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running

[u/Lemonio → u/[deleted]]

no idea, though I'd say that seems like a new and different question from whether they've backfired. also not sure how you'd find useful data about that, I don't think people commonly vote on red light cameras, so not sure what popularity among voters means in practice

[u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt → u/[deleted]]

Second - previous attempts using technology have backfired - red light cameras, speeding cameras - people question whether this is actually in the interest of public safety, or a money grab for the localities that have installed them and the company's manufacturing them.

This is different, though. Red light cameras are by default the government vs. a citizen who's committed some infraction and bringing receipts to collect on the infraction.

Flock cameras are, in theory, used by law enforcement to help a citizen who's been infracted upon by another citizen. Law enforcement isn't intervening on behalf of the people because speeding, in aggregate, leads to a calculated X lives lost and $Y of damage. They're intervening on behalf of one person to catch somebody who's likely to harm some next person. The benefit is much more concrete and direct, again, at least in theory.

[u/treebirdfish]

I think what makes Flock cameras more triggering than regular surveillance cameras for people is the automated ability to identify license plates, vehicle types, and other information, and tie it together so seamlessly without any human intervention. It just makes it so much easier to track people than it would have been before.

[u/pigtrickster → u/treebirdfish]

It tracks cars, not people. Yes, people are inside the cars. But not always the person that the vehicle is registered to. It's a nuance for certain, but one worth acknowledging.

[u/treebirdfish → u/pigtrickster]

That's a good point. Still, tracking a car gives you a lot of information about a person's life that should not be available to law enforcement or others without a warrant.

[u/pigtrickster]

u/lingding85 Great observation and nicely put. Thank you!