408
Winona police want to know who stole their Flock surveillance cameras (www.mprnews.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If you see someone vandalizing / stealing private surveillance cameras in public areas : No You Didn't.

While I get them in public transit it's still a slippery slope, and could be manually triggered by a (physically protected) driver in needed situation. Then there's the whole everyone with a phone camera uploading them to Google / Apple (and consequently three letter agencies as well) which is the granddaddy of privacy destruction.

At some point, when this all shakes out as the terrible idea many have already suggested, we need to require third party consent for visual recording (like for audio in some jurisdictions) and was once required for profitable publication. If that ends up with a lot more landscapes and art photography online, I'll consider it a win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.

    "We can brutalize people even harder now??"

    I do hate the Flock shit and everything else you mentioned though. Idk what the answer is other than sane legislation that is for the people so of course that will not ever happen here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.

    Yeah, good point. An exception here would be good, also not requiring consent to film police (and other actors for state violence) should be baked in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    This gets complicated because you also need to build in an exception for anyone interacting with the police or in the background of the shot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Seems pretty reasonable, with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary oversight. Everything gets destroyed as a matter of course unless legal proceedings ensue within a proscribed time frame, unless third party approval is given. Do you disagree? Do you have a better option? I'm just scratching around, appreciate the input.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't know that I really have a better option, but I do have some parameters that I would really like to see.

    My position is that there should be no expectation of privacy when you're in public but there are obviously issues with that. I think there should be a distinction between private photography and recordings and official ones though. Someone taking a video of their kids playing in the park shouldn't need to get consent from every person in the park who may end up getting recorded. Even private security cameras such as doorbell cameras should be okay even if the recording includes public areas near the home like the street or sidewalk.

    Posting said recordings online is another matter. Say I take a video of my dog playing in the park and post it on youtube because I think it's cute. Now let's say that the video includes other people in the background. I think that should be fine if the people just happen to be there in the background. On the other hand, if I post the video with the intent of pointing out the people in the background and mocking them, that is a whole other issue. I think that should fall afoul of some sort of revenge-porn like law. People should have a right to the direct use of their image in a public venue but not an absolute right that would make it illegal to post their image or even their voice as an incidental background feature.

    Having said all that, I do not approve of the use of cameras by government or law enforcement unless it is part of an existing investigation and a warrant has been obtained or as part of standard (and universal) use of body-cams. Police, and the government in general, should not have networks of surveillance cameras monitoring everyone all the time. Neither should police be able to access private or business security cameras without valid probable cause or a warrant. Recordings made by members of the public for their own entertainment, news reporting (whether they are a paid reporter or not), or security purposes should be considered completely separately from government or police recordings.

    I have no idea if this idea could be effectively legislated, but in my perfect world, this is how it would be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    I get it, and I'm a bit cavalier myself about just taking a photo, and that's historically been fine for personal use. The problem comes when companies aggregate that privilege. One of the interesting possibilities now available is simply removing all (non focused / designated) background humans from a photo, and it can be done on device these days. The tech could actually be used to preserve privacy, but where's the profit?

    The mechanisms to stop mass surveillance by governments are in place, warrants and so forth, but they are now able to simply buy it from private concerns which makes it OK legally apparently (until challenged). Perhaps there needs to be an expectation of significant consequences for flaunting ethics before legal precedents have been set, things change fast, but decency is still recognizable.

    Journalists should also have a pass, poor bastards have been used hard in the last few decades. I'd suggest making it a formal, protected profession like doctors or psychologists, with strict ethical guidelines, like it almost was once. Allow whistleblowers and others with information for the public good temporary protection under the same guidelines.

    All in all, it makes little difference to simply post online, but I do appreciate the chance to test my ideas and formulate something coherent from the inchoate rage I feel at the unchecked abuses I see daily. Thanks for your input, here's hoping you, I, and others get the chance to put these ideas to use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent