The police say that over the weekend, officers found the poles the cameras were mounted on had been cut down and the cameras were gone. Flock cameras are stirring controversy across the country as they compile license plate and other vehicle details in a national database.
  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    1272·
    10 天前

    I have never and I will never see someone cutting down a Flock camera.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      69·
      10 天前

      I mean it’s the cameras’ job to keep track of criminals, right? So it’s not my job anymore to give a shit about where they went or what they looked like, surely.

      • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
        28·
        10 天前

        Growing up watching Batman and Spiderman be told to leave it to the professionals, I think it might be my job to not interfere by knowing anything.

        My memory has been shot for ten years anyways.

        • fartographer@lemmy.world
          5·
          9 天前

          I mean, who am I gonna trust? Some person on the Internet saying that I didn’t see anything, or my lying eyes?

    • chocrates@piefed.worldEnglish
      6·
      9 天前

      It’s never our job to assist the police. If they talk to you the only response is “am I being detained”

  • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
    110·
    10 天前

    I think flock is stealing their own cameras so they can reset them and charge to replace them. There is a clear incentive.

  • Garbagio@lemmy.zip
    29·
    10 天前

    I didn’t see ahit, I don’t know shit, I plead the 5th, get out of my doorway

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      10 天前

      If you don’t have a cellphone but ya got a sheisty…

      There’s not really anyway to ID the person in the video.

      • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.mlEnglish
        61·
        10 天前

        They’d recognize my LIMP. I have a (documented) broken bone in my foot.

        (For a short time I can limp on the wrong foot so THEY have PROOF that it wasn’t me)

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          9 天前

          Gait recognition is not as good as they say it is…

          They use it to say two videos are of the same person, but if you think “expert testimony” gives actual opinions and not just what will get lawyers to pay them again…

          Then you don’t understand how any of this works.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      6·
      8 天前

      I know it’s a joke, but I’m hijacking youry comment because it’s a great example sentence on why you should never, ever talk to the police outside of an active emergency when you need their help.

      You didn’t do anything, but your words self-incriminated you as someone who took part in the destruction of the cameras.

      • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        7·
        8 天前

        Hmm, never thought of it that way. Yes, if someone were incredibly stupid or malicious, that would certainly come off that way. So I can see why a cop might see it like that.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          7·
          8 天前

          Exactly. And when they testify at trial that you admitted to being with the offender at the time of the crime, it’s not just the cop’s opinion you have to worry anout. Your defense of “I was lying to get the real culprit off the hook” also wouldn’t help you much at that point. Best case you’re looking at an obstruction conviction.

          Even more interestingly - this scenario doesn’t require the officer to be corrupt.

          Never talk to cops.

  • Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish
    18·
    9 天前

    Obviously it was local drug addicts. They were just desperate for a fix and learned about the high value of all the parts in those cameras. Perhaps I was talking too loudly the other day about the resale value of all the expensive electronics in those Flock cameras.

    Golly gee, I sure hope more junkies don’t find out how much money they could make. It would be a tragedy if junkies all over started stealing those Flock cameras.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    18·
    10 天前

    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.

    • DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip
      81·
      10 天前

      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.

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
        6·
        10 天前

        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.

        • Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          9 天前

          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.

          • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
            1·
            8 天前

            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.

            • Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish
              1·
              8 天前

              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.

              • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
                2·
                8 天前

                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.

    • ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml
      1·
      8 天前

      In Germany (most of Europe I think), it’s illegal to film people without their consent. Private citizens that is, you can always film the cops of course.