As I understand how its used, somebody robs a liquor store and drives away. Maybe 10 days later a detective gets a warrant for the footage from that day, finds the part where they drove away, then follows the footage backward to the part where they left their house. Then drives over and arrests them. Kind of like a time machine, or Minority Report in reverse.
Intelligence agencies have been doing it in-house for a long time, you can watch them daily on flight trackers.
Buzzfeed open sourced their tracking methods.
Anyone who believes that, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
> [Police Commissioner Michael] Harrison sees no privacy concern.
I can see him saying he considers the crime fighting value of data gained greater than the privacy lost, but to see no concern sounds like lack of empathy, compassion, and competence.
Who enforces it? How can they know?
He also said, "There is no expectation of privacy on a public street, a sidewalk. . . while you are outside, there is no expectation of privacy."
I didn't infer the worst, which might be malice or self-serving, not incompetence.
Am I unreasonable to have an expectation of privacy while in my backyard? Certainly I can have an expectation of privacy while also not being inside a building at the same time.
This interview with David Simon "The Wire" provides insight.
Beating up on the police department has become a favorite past time of the politicians, with the predictable result that officers are unwilling to go after criminals unless it is very cut and dried. This is likely why this plane is being pushed - it would provide clear evidence without hard police work that is impossible to do in the political climate of the city.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Yes, he was actually talking about the Penn family trying to buy the governor off to veto defense spending, but the quote's sentiment is still valid.
Surveillance technology can be a good thing, but only if policed very well with adequate checks and balances. I don't usually see those checks and balances in place when surveillance is rolled out.
I'm a European myself but it sounds like everything America was set up on the hope of avoiding. What about all those people who advocate gun rights? Why aren't they up on arms, either metaphorically or even literally, about this?
This is an effect of slowly giving up rights over the years.
They probably are, but militias planning anti-government behavior don't tend to post to social media, and such groups tend to get banned or shadowbanned by social media anyway.
They are largely suburban and rural whites.
Police overreach largely impacts suburban and urban minorities. They aren't necessarily racist, they just don't see the impact.
The political right has always (at least in my 30 years of paying attention) had a strong authoritarian tilt as well.
Regarding the gun owners, my intuition is that they would be more privacy minded than the average American, but I didn't find any information on a quick search.
(An aside: Posting a similar wonder as you just did recently got me permbanned from Twitter after 12 years of daily use and ~10k followers. You're apparently not even allowed ask questions about guns and cops in the same sentence over there, even if it's not your own guns you're asking about. No response whatsoever to support/appeal inquiries. It's toast.)
The other team, they make noises about human rights and equal protection, but have no practical means to induce the police to comply, due to decades of having voted in those states to deny themselves even optional/opt-in access to the types of weapons the police carry in every single police vehicle just meters from them on a daily basis.
Meaningful nonviolent physical resistance in most of the more populated places in the US is thus now totally infeasible, as we have learned in places like Ferguson or New York City as the police are significantly better armed than any group that they wish to subdue, legally or illegally. (For a long time I thought this was a new development until eventually learning about Kent State when I was in my mid 20s.)
For example, during the 2008 RNC in New York just before W's second term, the NYPD were able to illegally imprison several thousand peaceful political protesters for a whole weekend in temporary concentration camps with total impunity due to this physical power imbalance, which resulted a few years later in an amazing $800M civil rights violation settlement (paid for out of tax money, of course; none of the police who orchestrated the illegal mass kidnapping suffered any negative consequences).
At higher levels, both "sides" are fully in agreement about the total commitment to continuous war and widespread illegal domestic surveillance. It seems that there are absolutely zero available political choices for "no widespread unchecked surveillance, no forever war" in the US any longer.
...and so the problem continues unabated.
Yes, there are lots of gun owners whose beliefs are pro authoritarian.
There are also lots of gun owners who are more anti-establishment.
We don’t have two or three monolithic groups in this country, although it seems many people would like to portray it that way for whatever reason.
We have an insanely diverse patchwork of non-exclusive groupings and categories with a wild array of beliefs, customs, and behaviors.
You might want to fact check your data there. W’s second term started several years before 2008.
I'm happy to send it to you personally; shoot me a mail.
If I ever get any sort of confirmation from Twitter that that's what caused the suspension, I am going to print some shirts for myself that say "Banned from Twitter for wondering why the Americans no longer shoot at the concentration camp guards."
Asking questions or wondering about why domestic terrorism and/or anti-government actions are or are not occurring during large developing political events involving militaries and unprecedented economic hardships is not “inciting violence”, it is a discussion of the political situation in a country.
It’s censorship of peaceful, political discussion.
Turns out, I wasn’t even entirely off base. The very thing I was asking about is a real phenomenon:
For the record, to be absolutely unambiguous: I did not threaten anyone.
Twitter rarely bans people for literally no reason, and it's typically safe to assume something happened to trigger it, even if unintentional.
I agree, I could be totally wrong. Hence my hedging language
Even with my doubts, I'm extremely opposed to such surveillance!
Or what was state of the art at DARPA in 2013?
Edit: Or more commonly available, just search for "Nikon Superzoom" on youtube, and watch some short demos there. And then imagine those pointed in all directions downwards, the videostream(s) saved to some small storage array, or even transmitted live to some ground station(s), indexed and overlaid on something like google maps, just better, with a time slider. Mark some car at some point (in time) and see where it moves...and so on.
Edit: like THIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSeU-OnI8E (3min13sec)
Edit: Oh! And something from 2016 about "The Surveillance Firm Recording Crimes From Baltimore's Skies" (7min29sec)
Another demo of the same thing from the same person/company in another town, also 2016: "The Eyes in the Sky That Catch Murders on Tape" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJLr0KMsRAA
So why is this news?
The bigger problem is that ordinary citizens shouldn't be under that kind of surveillance EVER. It's good to have these things brought to light and discussed (especially the downsides and all potential for abuse).
"Then, once we realize what we can do, we wonder whether we should."
If police don't need a warrant to do something that probably means that it's legal to do, right?
There was a famous case recently where a judge ruled that searching someone's trash didn't require a warrant as they had discarded it and it was no longer "theirs", so cops were within their rights to search through it. Presumably having been granted permission, some journalists then took it upon themselves to inventory and publish the exact contents of the judge's trash, including prescription medicine packaging and such. If I recall correctly, it didn't end well for the journalists.
There are two different sets of laws, for two different sets of people in the US.
It's not quite fair to compare actions by an officer of the court with that of the general public. By design.
If you say the police can do it because he's a police officer [... and because of that does it mean he has better judgement?], then why have a law about warrants?
Being an officer of the court is important, and attempts to blur that are disingenuous. Cherry-picking one facet of the incident is not a good argument. What-about-isms likewise.
Not without a warrant
Again, with the cherry-picking.
That could actually fly if the officer had a reasonable belief the trash contained relevant evidence, and the trash collector was going to take it away before a warrant could be acquired.
It's fitting that the past decade has produced a neologism, "souveillance", to describe this approach.
Would fall easily in the obstructing of justice category, so, yep. You can't win this fight
No it isn't.
Call me skeptical...
I would actually feel better if this was used in conjunction with even more surveillance. That way there's more data to rule out coincidental or misleading information. It still wouldn't be great, but it would be better than this method alone. (They do already use cameras on cop cars to record license plates of passing cars, and cameras at intersections that flag when they register the sound of gunshots. This still isn't enough to correlate the complex movements of organized crime across the city)
Another more positive way it could be used is for community outreach programs to contact at risk youth, before they get deeply involved with gangs. Or to document and protect the LGBT POC homeless youth, one of the most vulnerable class of people in the US. Or to inform programs on overhauling public transportation, to update bus routes or plan a new rail line better. Or public health programs to battle drug addiction. Or to fine companies that dump waste into the watershed that makes its way into the harbor. You could potentially use this data for a lot of good.
Sadly, Baltimore's police have a long record of corruption, including planting evidence, a private hit squad, violence, and abuse of surveillance methods such as Stringrays. So even if I'd like to play devil's advocate, this is not a city with a great track record. They need to make this program very transparent to show it isn't abused.
Here, watch this, it's a good talk about why voluntarily providing information will generally backfire on you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I bet the management at TeleBärn doesn’t spend much time having nuanced legal discussions about the difference between US and Canadian law either.
We got some really weird EU rules a year or two back which fucks about with a lot of content.
I'm off to walmart for some reynolds wrap
I see, you're also disrespecting people's privacy where it is legal. Alright.