Excellent article. Where technology crosses new lines that raise privacy concerns, I am reminded of George Orwell's book "1984": "In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows." The book was a warning, not an instruction book. The technology, if misused by humans, can be too intrusive. I agree that independent oversight is needed. Prosecutors should establish a review panel to review detectives' applications to use the technology, with access to a limited period of data and an application for a court order to access older data. The assignment of case numbers, with the approving party's authorization for access logged in the database, could be worked out.
Great piece. Another perfect example of how failure to invest adequately in policing systems is one of the biggest problems we face. We overtask and under-resource agencies. Technologies like ALPR are game-changers for gaining efficiencies, but they are ripe for abuse if users are not adequately trained and supported.
Your article and perspective is outstanding. Great example, my squad hated the 2002 Ford Taurus cars. We had just hired a giant officer so we used him to prove to the chief that these cars were inadequate. The new guy personally owned two Tauruses. We need two things - first to figure out what we need and set proper limits - second, to remember that some of our clearance rates were higher in the pre-ALPR age.
After the COVID tyrannies and excesses many/most of us believe Flock cameras will be used against us when the would be tyrants declare a new fake emergency.
They are a system that is ripe for abuse. Hopefully this is the shock to the system necessary for change. I'm still bewildered why they need my data for 30 days to solve AMBER alerts.
A cop never saw a constitutional right he/she wasn’t itching to violate, or an innocent person whose life they weren’t willing to destroy. Audit themselves? Police themselves? Be held to same rules as citizens? Yeah…that has worked out so well.
Excellent article. Where technology crosses new lines that raise privacy concerns, I am reminded of George Orwell's book "1984": "In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows." The book was a warning, not an instruction book. The technology, if misused by humans, can be too intrusive. I agree that independent oversight is needed. Prosecutors should establish a review panel to review detectives' applications to use the technology, with access to a limited period of data and an application for a court order to access older data. The assignment of case numbers, with the approving party's authorization for access logged in the database, could be worked out.
Great piece. Another perfect example of how failure to invest adequately in policing systems is one of the biggest problems we face. We overtask and under-resource agencies. Technologies like ALPR are game-changers for gaining efficiencies, but they are ripe for abuse if users are not adequately trained and supported.
Your article and perspective is outstanding. Great example, my squad hated the 2002 Ford Taurus cars. We had just hired a giant officer so we used him to prove to the chief that these cars were inadequate. The new guy personally owned two Tauruses. We need two things - first to figure out what we need and set proper limits - second, to remember that some of our clearance rates were higher in the pre-ALPR age.
Same problems, different technology.
After the COVID tyrannies and excesses many/most of us believe Flock cameras will be used against us when the would be tyrants declare a new fake emergency.
They are a system that is ripe for abuse. Hopefully this is the shock to the system necessary for change. I'm still bewildered why they need my data for 30 days to solve AMBER alerts.
A cop never saw a constitutional right he/she wasn’t itching to violate, or an innocent person whose life they weren’t willing to destroy. Audit themselves? Police themselves? Be held to same rules as citizens? Yeah…that has worked out so well.