Sorry. Not buying your argument. And neither are many people and places. ALPRs sound great in theory. But there's pesky people involved. Who are documented in misusing these systems.
How about you let someone follow you with a camera all day and record everything you are doing and then you do not know what they are going to do with that information. If you are ok with that, then at least you are not a hypocrite, you are strange and do not value your privacy, but not a hypocrite. Otherwise, please STFU and do not tell us that we should give up our rights.
They are trying to link them with other commercial cameras, they also do not just read license plates, they look at signatures of your vehicles such as dents, scratches, etc….it is very much what they do in terms of anytime you travel in a car. If you walk by one as a pedestrian, that too is recorded, they have not begun to ID people in the same way that they have with vehicles, but that is just a programming change. This is an obvious slippery slope for mass surveillance by a govt entity. That you think it is ok is worrisome.
EDIT: Quick question, if you do not think that is what they do then why do they have them on bike/walking trails in VA?
Hey bud, why not engage on the points instead of trying to go after me for using AI? I’ve got a job and it’s not to shill for Andreessen Horowitz. So did AI help me research and put my ideas into a format for humans that I subsequently edited? Yes. Does that delegitimize the points? That’s your argument to make.
Flock is only one node of a system emplacement that began with red light cameras and has been normalized by tactics such as firing bridge toll booth operators.
It was wrong from the beginning, has been wrong for decades and will remain wrong as the nodes proliferate and continue to link together.
Competence is as competence does, and law enforcement officers tend to be competent people, overall. Their monomania is to "get the bad guys" and that's a good thing. Monomaniacs, however, will always incrementally serve the interests of their mania, always and ever taking it farther and farther.
The arguments made in the article are uncompelling and broadly dismissive in an all too familiar pattern.
The answer to your surveillance society incrementalism is a hard "no." We need a sufficiency of officers on the beat, not totalitarian surveillance.
Great post, you should continue writing about this. Couple suggestions to sharpen the story:
1/ I don’t think you mentioned clearance rates at all, but motor vehicle theft clearance rates are abysmal. Like 10% nationally. The public safety benefit isn’t just preventing future theft through deterrence; it’s helping bring justice to the vast majority of victims of existing theft who never see their vehicles again.
2/ The bare “civil liberties” appeal deserves MUCH more scrutiny than it usually gets. The burden should be on those who say there’s a civil liberties infringement when our highest courts have routinely found there aren’t. Can’t just hand-wave objections here — ALPR critics need more rigorous arguments.
3/ support for ALPRs can have a conservative and progressive motivation behind it: accountability for criminals, and justice for victims, esp the poor who can least afford a new car.
4/ most people don’t know the standard set of data handling and access mitigations PDs have for their ALPR systems. Probably worth trotting those out in future posts and asking “where’s the residual risk?”
Your moral panic framing is great though. Useful diagnostic. Stay on this one — it’s a true public service; not just MI cultural war contrarianism.
Why treat the number of cops "fired, arrested, or prosecuted" as the primary indicator? Making that the numerator -- pretending that 125 is the total number of incidents of abuse -- suggests a belief in police accountability and transparency that's not in touch with reality.
You know, on re-reading I see you gesture at this, so I tried to delete this comment and the app wouldn't let me. Anyway, I think you're wrong on this, but not as wrong as I thought on this particular point. That's practically common ground, given the tone of the Flock conversation on both sides.
If the assumption is that more cameras = less crime, well then we'll see. The data is disappointing in the UK. One of the most surveilled countries in the world since at least the 90s and crime is not going down.
"This all might be proportional if abuse were widespread or if we actually were living in an Orwellian “slave state.” But it isn’t, and we’re not."
It was literally just a few years ago where leaving your house and freely breathing the air was illegal.
When and where exactly was this illegal?
COVID
I understood what you were referencing but I am at a loss to come up with a place in the US where it was illegal to leave your house.
Stay at home orders were routine at the beginning of the pandemic.
Later a similar restriction was placed on the unvaccinated:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Pojt8Kd7y/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Sorry. Not buying your argument. And neither are many people and places. ALPRs sound great in theory. But there's pesky people involved. Who are documented in misusing these systems.
How about you let someone follow you with a camera all day and record everything you are doing and then you do not know what they are going to do with that information. If you are ok with that, then at least you are not a hypocrite, you are strange and do not value your privacy, but not a hypocrite. Otherwise, please STFU and do not tell us that we should give up our rights.
Very much not an accurate description of what ALPRs do.
They are trying to link them with other commercial cameras, they also do not just read license plates, they look at signatures of your vehicles such as dents, scratches, etc….it is very much what they do in terms of anytime you travel in a car. If you walk by one as a pedestrian, that too is recorded, they have not begun to ID people in the same way that they have with vehicles, but that is just a programming change. This is an obvious slippery slope for mass surveillance by a govt entity. That you think it is ok is worrisome.
EDIT: Quick question, if you do not think that is what they do then why do they have them on bike/walking trails in VA?
It's like your schizophrenic bro
Ok, I will bite. How am I schizophrenic bro?
So give up my 4th amendment rights?
I don’t think I will.
Just get a warrant. Time for this to go to the Supreme Court.
https://pulpitfortruth.substack.com/p/a-permanent-tail-on-every-american?r=2kc5k&utm_medium=ios
hey bud, why'd you disable AI checking on your susbstack?
https://www.pangram.com/history/8952dc2d-250c-477d-b68c-d39b9507c734?ucc=0bmcFE5MevZ
Hey bud, why not engage on the points instead of trying to go after me for using AI? I’ve got a job and it’s not to shill for Andreessen Horowitz. So did AI help me research and put my ideas into a format for humans that I subsequently edited? Yes. Does that delegitimize the points? That’s your argument to make.
Why are you so against having a warrant?
I am actually kind of optomistic that the SCOTUS will rule against them, (FLOCKs), as a violation of the 4th Amendment after Chatrie v. United States.
Flock is only one node of a system emplacement that began with red light cameras and has been normalized by tactics such as firing bridge toll booth operators.
It was wrong from the beginning, has been wrong for decades and will remain wrong as the nodes proliferate and continue to link together.
Competence is as competence does, and law enforcement officers tend to be competent people, overall. Their monomania is to "get the bad guys" and that's a good thing. Monomaniacs, however, will always incrementally serve the interests of their mania, always and ever taking it farther and farther.
The arguments made in the article are uncompelling and broadly dismissive in an all too familiar pattern.
The answer to your surveillance society incrementalism is a hard "no." We need a sufficiency of officers on the beat, not totalitarian surveillance.
Great post, you should continue writing about this. Couple suggestions to sharpen the story:
1/ I don’t think you mentioned clearance rates at all, but motor vehicle theft clearance rates are abysmal. Like 10% nationally. The public safety benefit isn’t just preventing future theft through deterrence; it’s helping bring justice to the vast majority of victims of existing theft who never see their vehicles again.
2/ The bare “civil liberties” appeal deserves MUCH more scrutiny than it usually gets. The burden should be on those who say there’s a civil liberties infringement when our highest courts have routinely found there aren’t. Can’t just hand-wave objections here — ALPR critics need more rigorous arguments.
3/ support for ALPRs can have a conservative and progressive motivation behind it: accountability for criminals, and justice for victims, esp the poor who can least afford a new car.
4/ most people don’t know the standard set of data handling and access mitigations PDs have for their ALPR systems. Probably worth trotting those out in future posts and asking “where’s the residual risk?”
Your moral panic framing is great though. Useful diagnostic. Stay on this one — it’s a true public service; not just MI cultural war contrarianism.
Why treat the number of cops "fired, arrested, or prosecuted" as the primary indicator? Making that the numerator -- pretending that 125 is the total number of incidents of abuse -- suggests a belief in police accountability and transparency that's not in touch with reality.
You know, on re-reading I see you gesture at this, so I tried to delete this comment and the app wouldn't let me. Anyway, I think you're wrong on this, but not as wrong as I thought on this particular point. That's practically common ground, given the tone of the Flock conversation on both sides.
If the assumption is that more cameras = less crime, well then we'll see. The data is disappointing in the UK. One of the most surveilled countries in the world since at least the 90s and crime is not going down.