The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up.
These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies. Agreed that this program was a bad idea, but the wider issue that law enforcement agencies can and do wantonly disregard direct orders from the state. There's the direct issue of impact on people as a result, and the more intangible idea of the questionable legitimacy of a government that is not able to control its own enforcement agencies.
This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it. Lacking that, it seems a reasonable inference that enforcement agencies are no longer bound by the will of the people and are in fact the ruling government.
> The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies.
You're correct, but the bigger picture here is: privacy violation rely on benevolence.
We're completely at the whim of parties more powerful than us, and we MUST trust that they will act in our best interests.
Now, we could just hope and cross our fingers that people are good people forever. Do you think that's going to be the case? Because I don't. So the only path forward that makes any sense is to simply not give bad actors the potential to even be bad. Meaning, we shouldn't even collect this data.
We have so many laws of this variety, which rely on our leaders remaining benevolent. This is in stark contrast to the US constitution, which explicitly says NOT to rely on benevolence, and rather construct systems so that we can dismantle our leadership should the time come.
> This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it.
That’s not going to happen. Cross out that sentence and reason as if we’ve already asked for that and it failed. We’ve heard this song too many times to pretend we don’t know the first verse.
Aren't those agencies doing exactly what the government is expecting them to do? So yes the government isn't willing to control - because the agencies are doing whatever the government isn't willing to say in the open because... elections and other technicalities. Thus, there's no repercussions swift or slow, because who should complain? Calling your representative only does so much, and if you do a mass protest you get labeled and possibly worse. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. Just a bit.
The US has a long history of agencies that decide by themselves to do things that are frequently illicit with the excuse that they're protecting the public. From police to 3 letter agencies, they're all operating illegal programs that should be stoped by the public. Whenever someone tries it, they protect their power using the excuse that they're doing this for the "benefit" of democracy or some similar BS.
For any dataset you collect, think about how it can be miss-used. Because in all likelihood it will. Maybe not by you. But maybe by your successor. Or the hacker.
Although it is interesting how inconsistently this principle of is applied to other areas. For example, if you come to HN and advocate against encryption or AI because they can amplify the dangers of bad actors, you are going to be met by fierce opposition. So why do these hypothetical bad actors only become valid concerns in certain conversations?
Its noteworthy to me that it took till 1943 for the reality of the threat to be taken seriously for this outcome
People making parallels I feel have been inaccurate, as the parallels right now are much closer to Europe's 1933 happenings, and people act like 1945's happenings is what will happen the very next day
Not sure what to make of that, just noticing that these particular "resistances" didn't have a prior allegory to watch, and made these choices eventually, and still how late into the story we know that these things occurred
Interestingly, as a direct outcome of the Nazis misusing this data Germany did not have a census for the longest time.
Here is an article from 1987 on the German protests against the new census, that was also the last Germany-led census: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/10/world/germans-stand-up-no... (BUT Germany has fairly strict rules on registration of your place of living, so perhaps a census is now unnecessary)
Before the Nazi's invaded the main guy who advocated for the civil registry which allowed the Nazi's to easily find jewish people went to his grave believing he did nothing wrong in advocating for such a database.
Clearly we all need to be thinking much more deeply on these issues.
Fair enough, but it is also valid to be angry at your local law enforcement if they are acting against the community's preferences. Especially when local law enforcement is breaking state law in the process.
Maybe true, but at a certain point you're just getting angry at the wind for blowing. The system is a scorpion: It cannot, will not go against its nature.
As someone who works with sensitive healthcare data, I can tell you that the mere existence of a dataset doesn't guarantee its misuse, nor it does it absolve anyone who interacts with that data of responsibility for proper stewardship.
Yes, you are right that we should think carefully before creating a sensitive dataset. If we insist on creating such a dataset, the people involved must put in place guardrails for stewardship of those datasets. But the stewards of that data, past, present, and future, also share responsibility.
Of course if the incentive structures don't line up with concern for mitigation of harm to vulnerable people as is the case with law enforcement in the US, then all of that is out the window.
Anyway, what you have written implies that we need not think about accountability for those who misuse of datasets after they are created, which is clearly absurd as I and anyone else familiar with healthcare data can tell you.
Also, be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020. If an organization consistently behaves in a way we don't like, we should seek alternatives to that organization, not continuously act surprised when they act out and keep giving them more money.
> be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020
This was tried. It generated a generational backlash against the left as petty crime and visible homelessness rose.
To the extent police reform has historically worked, it’s been by rebooting a police department. (Think: replacing the Mets with the NYPD.) Not replacing police with a hippie circle.
These people were mostly defeated in elections and the ones promising to shovel even more money got elected, just look at Eric Adams in NYC.
I seriously hope what is happening right now finally radicalizes the rest of the population that law enforcement as it is right now does not work for the public interest.
"Defund the police" was and remains wildly unpopular with almost everyone, especially minorities (as a reminder to any of those out touch reading this: there are large racial disparities in who is affected by crime, particularly violent crime) . It was quintessential "progressives are out of touch" ammunition, not only used by republicans (obviously), but also establishment democrats in competitive districts.
As another commenter posted, its about not allowing the creation of the data set in the first place.
We really need everyone in this country to go read "Nothing to Hide" by Daniel Solove, because thats how this crazy shit gets through in the first place: innocuous citizens go "Sure, I got nothing to hide"
To be fair, systems like Flocksafety really help departments being squeezed for funding. It's one of the ways the system is sold. It's an effective tool.
I'm not sure how to think about this. It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
At some point it seems like we have to trust that governments can act responsibly, in the interest of voters -- in this case local voters, or we should all just pack it in.
The other thought: I get the thought that people will always care more about local concerns of car break ins, shoplifting, and quality of life than larger ideas like privacy and law enforcement abuse. It seems to convince people to care about the larger issues, the local things have to be solved, and not just ignored.
I've lived in San Francisco for over 10 years now, and it's been disappointing to see the lack on progress on basic quality of life issues.
> It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
The only reason either of these happen is because law enforcement is lazy and dangerous.
We pretty much gave up on most traffic enforcement because law enforcement officers can't help shooting people they pull over. That's a problem - if they would just start acting somewhat decent, the PD would stop losing a few hundred million a year in lawsuits.
To be frank, I have no idea what law enforcement even does these days. They don't speed trap, they barely respond to calls, they're not pulling people over. Are they just sitting on their asses and getting a check, petrified of public discourse?
This same argument is true for every bit of authority we give to law enforcement agencies (and really, the government in general). We expect they'll use those powers responsibly and within the limitations that we've ascribed, but it's always a risk that they're used irresponsibly and in situations we don't approve of.
Yes, this is an argument for not giving them more authority than necessary, but it's also an argument for holding them accountable when they do act out of bounds.
To this point, any law that gives power to government officials also needs to have explicit and painful consequences for abuse of those powers. Civilians who break the law face punishment and penalties, but government employees are almost never held to account. That needs to change.
There are mobile survalience cameras systems at my very family friendly park. Everyone has asked the city to tow them away but they refuse. There was no vote on this.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
One or two cops locked up for it can also work wonders. But somehow the western world has come to believe that lots of pretty laws with no consequences for transgressions is a wonderful thing. I think not.
If you are a district attorney in a city, you depend on the help and cooperation of the police in your daily work. If you became unpopular with the police they can make your work very difficult and you could also become politically very unpopular. I think district attorneys and police want to do what they think is right but its very understandable to me why a DA does not want to prosecute police.
Click through to the law in question. It's the Civil Code not Criminal Code, and states, "an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm."
So you have to prove actual harm. You have to identify the individual person who caused the harm. You have to prove they knowingly caused the harm. You have to quantify the harm in monetary terms. Then you can sue them for actual damages + attorneys' fees.
> The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing
Nah, be mad at both the people who enabled the data collection and the agency that abused that data.
This should be grounds for laws that limit or eliminate the use of Flock Safety in the state, and laws that meaningfully punish agencies that use that data inappropriately as well as the individuals who authorized it.
> be angry at [...] the people among us [who] foolishly thought it [...] would be a good thing for alternative transportation
Yikes. That is one tortuous sentence you needed to construct just to blame this on leftists. I applaud your wordcraft. But no, that's ridiculous. Urban transit hippies are very much not to blame for ICE overreach. Just for the record.
>If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
Perhaps I am gifted, but I contain enough anger within for both guilty parties. However, the bulk of is aimed at the police who unambiguously broke the law and will face no consequences for doing so.
If someone points out that the system you're building can be abused, and you don't stop and come up with a solid plan to prevent abuse then you're just building the system for abuse.
> Don't be angry at the people building them for good.
I am angry because the same people who've argued for years against the kinds of education systems that teach actual social systemic thinking and who've called me naive and cynical for suggesting their pretty toy is going to get people killed are now throwing up their hands and saying "how could we have known?"
Nope. If you're one of them, as a practitioner you should damn well be able to reasonably foresee the pathological use case. Hell, I only cut myself minimal slack for having grown up believing constant exhortations by Oldtimers that "Kid, no one in their right mind would do that," only to see my peer group replacing them do exactly what the Oldtimers were insistent that common sense dictated wouldn't be done.
It is on us to be realistic about how the systems we create will actually be used. I think we lost sight of that in the last couple decades, or figured it wasn't our problem. And the chickens have come home to roost.
A lot of people raised similar objections to dna databases, and later when those same databases was used by law enforcement. It did not take very long until law makers and law enforcement made i praxis that such data bases are up to grab for trawling through. Any objection is meet with the handful of cold cases that was closed because that trawling of data.
Sadly I dont see a realistic stop to the databases. If there are none, law makers will just dictate the creation of it. If there is one, they will argue terrorism or cold cases to start the process of getting access. If car manufacturers get gps logs, those will sooner or later end up being available to law enforcement. They currently have access to every call, when where and to whom. Every internet use. Every movement mobile phones does. Every payment through a credit card, where and to whom. Mass transports get more and more into personal tickets, and those get logged.
I hope we will see unreasonable searches to be expanded/enforcement against trawling of data, but i dont have any hope left to the idea that databases wont be created. Not even gdpr in eu stops law makers from dictating that databases must be created, or stopping law makers from trawling it.
Yeah, I think both things can be true: one is that it is absolutely utterly unacceptable to be in the year 2025 advocating for new data collection programs in the name of "fighting crime" - it should be absolutely abundantly clear to even the most naive of us now that A) the cops have absolutely zero interest in pursuing the kinds of crime we're actually interested in - the closure rate on shoplifting, car and package theft, and other property crime is basically zero, and that's not because the cops don't have enough resources, and B) any of these systems will be abused immediately to target whoever it is the feds have decided are the bad guy this week, be it palestine protestors, trans people, immigrants, ex-girlfriends, or whoever else we've decided is outside the circle of protection today.
At the same time, it's also absolutely goddamn unnacceptable that we've come to just accept that our LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser. There are systems that are intended to hold these groups accountable, and we need to keep pressing until they do, because throwing up our hands and just saying "Boys will be boys" ain't cutting it.
> LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser.
Well, they are unaccountable state-sanctioned gangs.
They can legally steal (forfeiture).
They can 'smell something' and legally trespass.
They can shoot and kill you for basically any reason. But they can fall back and say 'I thought they were reaching for a weapon'.
SCOTUS, even with more liberal justices, have repeatedly said they are shielded from 'official capacities', and that they have absolutely no requirement of protecting and serving.
You think the police have adequate resources to solve package theft? I’m sorry, what? That’s ridiculous. Here’s the 2023 stats for SF:
Porch thefts: 25,000
Cops: 2000
Obviously not all of those cops are on duty simultaneously, let’s assume they do a 12 hour shift every single day: they would have 25 porch thefts each to solve!
This isn’t a US centric phenomenon either: 70,000 cell phones were stolen in London last year.
Sending people back to their home country, especially when 50% are criminals, is not the same as the holocaust. Comparing it to such is disgusting and insulting to the actual victims of Nazi violence.
ICE is often operating in a racist and dehumanizing way, but it is nowhere near the level of organized atrocity that it is regularly compared to.
I agree that it this comparison is overblown, and do not believe in general that this kind of overstatements do any good to the cause of those who make them.
There is something in common though: that very dangerous belief that lying and ignoring the law is justified by the end goal. Speaking of lies, where did you get this statistics that 50% of expulsed immigrants are criminals? Even their own statistics (https://www.ice.gov/statistics) show that a small minority have ever been convicted (and I would assume that most of those convictions would not be very serious crimes)
> In the autumn of 1941, approximately 338,000 Jews remained in Greater Germany. Until this point, Hitler had been reluctant to deport Jews in the German Reich until the war was over because of a fear of resistance and retaliation from the German population. But, in the autumn of 1941, key Nazi figures contributed to mounting pressure on Hitler to deport the German Jews. This pressure culminated in Hitler ordering the deportation of all Jews still in the Greater German Reich and Protectorate between 15-17 September 1941.
Nah, I think as a society we should be able to set up speed cameras to crack down on speeding, without worrying about how it could be misused maliciously against law abiding motorists. Get angry at the people doing bad things. Otherwise we shouldn't build anything that could potentially be misused.
Voters will nearly always fall for "Think of the children!" Trying to point out how bad of an argument that is has only earned me screaming arguments from my wife. Some people do not prioritize liberty, and so, get less as result of their choices.
I was going to call you out for hyperbole, especially since the (AI) search overview had pedestrian deaths for 2025 at only 4, but previous years at around 10-15, which is pretty bad.
I live in Oakland too, and I hate hate hate that we're enabling masked, unnamed government enforcers to kidnap people off the streets and potentially deport them without even verifying they are who they are thought to be.
I also know that we cannot afford to keep letting criminals run this town and destroy public property and kill people on the roads and get away with it
I live in Oakland too, and was taken aback at first by calling it a killing field... until I actually admitted to myself that my greatest safety fear here is getting wiped out on foot or bike by some of the most atrocious drivers in the entire bay area with near-zero traffic enforcement.
The post you're responding to isn't arguing shifting blame. They're arguing that instrumental actions should be included. If you think expanding the scope of accountability dilutes the pool, that's another argument. But at least have good faith. They're not your enemy.
These two things are one in the same. Every data broker knows exactly who their ultimate clients are.
That's why Palantir never broke a sweat losing bazillions of dollars for years and years and years. Their final goal is to be essentially an indispensable arm of the police surveillance state.
Flock is absolutely designed to facilitate and encourage this kind of abuse. They have extensive data sharing built in to their system while promising agencies that the users "own" the data.
My local police department just recently got a grant for these and is in the process of setting them up, and I'm working with a number of local technologists and activists to shut it down. We are showing up at every police commission meeting and every city council meeting and keeping actively engaged with local press. I spent almost three hours yesterday having coffee with a police commissioner and I have meeting requests from a number of other local officials. There are similar efforts ongoing in other cities across the U.S.
Immediately after setting up the system -- before all of the devices were even fully online -- our local PD began sharing access with departments in non-sanctuary states. When we asked questions about it, they hid that section from their transparency page. We are cooking them publicly for that.
Flock is VC-funded commercialized mass surveillance.
The type of crime common here is nearly impossible to address without technological assistance. People steal cars, drive into neighborhoods, then break into other cars and houses. They're gone sometimes before a 911 call can even be made, and far before the police arrive. The criminals know this and are just incredibly brazen about it. They'll finish the job with people watching and recording because they know there's no way for them to be caught. People get followed home and held up in their driveway. The criminals are often armed, and people have been shot and killed for even the mildest of resistance. One guy was killed a block from where I was standing for knocking on the window of a getaway car of some guys stealing another car in broad daylight.
Leaving aside broader and more fundamental fixes for crime, which are much longer term projects, the only near-term thing that actually reduces this kind of crime is arrest and conviction rates. In SF, drones have helped reduced car break-ins, because they've actually caught some crews. Oakland doesn't have drones that I know of, but Flock cameras have enabled enough tracking for police to sometimes actually find these people quickly, even several miles away, and make an arrest.
Those are just the plain facts of the situation. It's understandable that people want some kind of solution here. Without at least starting from that understanding, it'll be very difficult to convince people that a solution that is having a positive impact already is not worth the other costs and risks.
And to me, this is the core conflict at a really high level: the economic and societal fixes for crime are usually opposed by the same people who abuse these kind of surveillance systems for authoritarian purposes. To me it's no coincidence that their preferred solution to crime just happens to help them keep an eye on the whole population.
There's a hugely material difference between deterring local property crime and handing ICE this information.
ICE is deporting people to death camps (e.g. CECOT), not giving people due process, operating masked and with military support. ICE is a gestapo in all but name.
By all means, find ways to get your community police departments to address crime in your communities. Work with systems outside of police to fix the systemic root causes (crime doesn't "just happen", it's a symptom of other problems). But you don't need the secret police to fix car jackings and break-ins.
My comment shouldn't be read in any way as supporting ICE or giving ICE this information. Doing so is clearly illegal under California law, and what ICE is doing right now is terrible.
But the prevailing sentiment in these comments is the the cameras shouldn't exist at all, not just that the data shouldn't be shared with ICE. My comment is about how useful the cameras are today. If you want them to not exist you need to understand why they do and probably offer up an alternate solution to the very real problems they address.
This is hardly a philosophical debate. Oakland is a mess. The previous police chief was fired, and the person that fired him, the mayor, was recalled by voters. And the DA in 2023-2024 was recalled by voters.
The governor warned Oakland in the past to reverse its policy on not engaging in police pursuits. Not surprisingly, the new police chief is proposing changing that policy.
Between this and the abortion story [1] (CEO deflected blame and took zero ownership [2]), it looks like Flock leans into enabling this sort of lawlessness. They should be torn out of our cities.
Do we have a list of their clients?
EDIT: Apparently my town installed them in 2023 [3]. Inciting a couple council members over for dinner this week.
What a ridiculous response. Just say "Flock cameras are designed for law enforcement to use however they see fit, even if it's to chase down abortion-getters, even if it's to kidnap people off the street into unmarked vans"
Occasional reminder that YC application required applicants to give an eample of how they cheated a system for personal gain. YC prefers "naughty" founders over honest ones.
Just so everyone remembers: automated collection is an unlawful search by the constitution. Stop advocating for a police state and expecting something different. (Mandatory registration of objects, mandatory medical procedures, mandatory facial accessories, mandatory automatic government payments to fund all of this)
> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches
Does this mean it wasn't exactly to Oakland Police that violated state law, but rather other CA based law enforcement entities?
it's also possible the other agencies only shared findings rather than specific records.
For example if the law says "plate reader records cannot be shared" and the CHP just confirms the presence of the records , and does not share the records, no violation occurred.
You did a good job reading the article from bottom to top. The headline and lead are usually misleading.
But from my quote, it sounds like federal agencies couldn't actually search the data themselves. Rather the Feds would do something like make a request to the Sacramento PD (random example), and then Sacramento would then search the OPD database, and then, presumably, give that data to the feds.
"The OPD (Oakland PD) didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times —
So the headline is misleading. It seems like oakland made their records available to state agencies like CHP, and one of those agencies queried the records and shared the query results with federal agencies.
And the article doesn't specify which results were shared.
So it's clear Oakland didn't violate the law, and there is reasonable doubt that the other agencies didn't violate the law either.
As part of a Flock search, police have to provide a “reason” they are performing the lookup. In the “reason” field for searches of Danville’s cameras, officers from across the U.S. wrote “immigration,” “ICE,” “ICE+ERO,”
It is. Some of it is being accessed illegally (ICE has been given full access to the IRS, which is a violation of the fifth amendment, local LE sharing it in contravention with state laws), and some of it is being accessed legally (local LE sharing it in compliance with state laws).
The criminals are, sadly, running the circus, and they are acting like they'll never lose power.
The only implication that your information was ever safe in America was marketing. Programmers should have been able to read the privacy-destroying tea leaves a decade ago.
Isn't there a whole trope about how the government is stupid and inefficient because agencies don't help each other out? Seems like in general sharing data is a good thing.
Questions are, should the police have the data and are our immigration policies correct. This issues need to be fix at the legal level. If we really want to change this we need to decide what we want immigration to be and not half ass it by looking the other way.
ALPR (automated license plate readers) are used across state lines to pull out drug mules and other stuff. Many local law enforcement employees are federal task forces involving drugs/guns/cartels/violence. Obviously, Feds have hands on these databases.
If you don’t think this system should be used, it should never have been built in the first place. Relying on a state law to prevent sharing data sounds rather naive.
Second, the page barely mentions ice, title is begging for clicks.
But you can't buy one at Wal Mart, and be trusted to only pull that trigger in situations when the uses of that system are legal! We don't sell them to consumers because the anticipated and obvious outcomes are harmful.
Flock Safety generated a treasure trove of highly sensitive data. In theory, there's nothing wrong with collecting that data, or even using it to investigate specific crimes with searches of limited scope under a judicial warrant. It's only harmful when used inappropriately... but no one should be surprised when that happened.
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation laws like interracial marriage which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
Example: Alabama was the last state to remove its ban on interracial marriage from its statutes in 2000, though this was largely symbolic as interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
There is probably a specific federal law enforcement authority that may or may not be in conflict with the state law. It's unclear if this is a 10th amendment violation for the state or if federal law enforcement is granted this authority
Federal Law takes precedence over State, but the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from directly compelling states to implement or enforce federal law. So local law enforcement is under no obligation to pass information to ICE or assist ICE. It has been ruled on time and time again, from 1842 when Justice Joseph Story affirmed it [1] to Justice Samuel Alito in 2018 [2].
[1] “The clause relating to fugitive slaves is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any State. It might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation to insist that the States are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the National Government nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.” Prigg v. Pennsylvania https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/
[2] “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476
My comment shouldn't be read as supporting the activities or really disagreeing with your statement. Was merely indicating that the legal authorities are not as clear cut as the article suggests.
To use your examples:
1) enforcement of borders is a power delegated to the federal government, and it's arguable these activities are within scope.
2) This is not a regulatory program but an enforcement activity (though you could argue that the state doesn't need to support these activities)
I don't think there is a 10th amendment violation or a question of federal authority. States can't be compelled to perform federal law enforcement because of the 10th amendment. States are accordingly allowed to prevent their own law enforcement from performing federal law enforcement. If state law enforcement aids the feds anyway, then they are just breaking state law.
A 10th amendment violation would be if the feds require the state to perform federal law enforcement.
Federal authority is relevant if they e.g. raided state law enforcement offices to take the data without consent, but in this case they are just given the data by state officers.
Datasets are created to be used. Once created they will eventually likely be used for purposes other than the original intention. Depending on the power dynamics in play this may be more or less likely.
There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good!
Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything.
We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar.
Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening.
That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
The system in place for dealing with corrupt law enforcement is federal law enforcement. It should be obvious why our ever growing police state ruled by fascists is not going to police itself.
The only feasible response to lawlessness of those empowered to uphold the law is to periodically remind them that legal authority is derived from the will of the people. Thomas Jefferson said this more elegantly than I could.
>>What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature?
Probably the same as it is at the federal level - voting out of office. During the Biden/Harris term there was a complete dereliction of duty when it came to border enforcement. Actually it was worse than that - they helped people illegally cross the border, even flew them in on the taxpayer dime. This is why we have President Trump today.
you don't even need license plate data. Every car emits 4 radio frequencies which make you uniquely identifiable even without a camera or plate. We can easily track (and they do) this information. But at least we know our tires arent flat!
It’s illegal because California made it illegal for municipal police to cooperate with federal agents. Trump and future Republicans will use this to accuse Democratic sanctuary cities of being lawless.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think we've been playing "everyone gets along" for far too long, and it's become obvious to the meek that people are gaming the system whilst pretending to get along. A correction is necessary, and that's precisely what you're witnessing here.
A fairly key aspect of American federalism is there are a lot of things the Feds can't force states to participate in, as provided in the Tenth Amendment. (Known as anti-commandeering doctrine.)
Sadly, Wickard v. Filburn effectively ended this.[1] Also the feds don't have to use force against the states to get compliance. They can do things like not provide funding for freeway maintenance[2], or penalize individuals for not participating (as was the case with the Affordable Care Act).
Genuinely, this. How many green card holders are suddenly at risk of having said card revoked and being tossed into a concentration camp after visiting a dispensary in a legal state? Democrats failure to amend the law as the public wants is going to come back to bite minorities in the ass once again.
Yeah, I'd rather we not terrorize the nation and build a national goon squad with a larger budget than most national militaries. I'd rather that goon squad not be unidentifiable and masked. And if we're willing to spend $100+ billion on a law enforcement program, I'd rather it be increasing police wages and firing bad cops and hiring/properly training new cops.
I'd rather not spend $100B on LEO at all, frankly.
There are other ways to crack down on immigration than ramping up the surveillance and police state.
edit: I am disappointed that the responder ignored the six points I made, all of which could be discussed, and instead went for a hollow whatabout.
Uh no. Tech, agriculture, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation. People love to hate on California but it really is the most productive state in the US. Facts please.
Not sure why the down votes. You are correct. The intro from your link:
"The economy of the State of California is the largest in the United States, with a $4.103 trillion gross state product (GSP) as of 2024.[1] It is the largest sub-national economy in the world. If California was an independent nation, it would rank as the fourth largest economy in the world in nominal terms, behind Germany and ahead of Japan."
The corruption in California is well known and frankly blatant.
Money laundering through tech startups or crypto shell companies, luxury real estate purchases by Chinese or Russian oligarchs for capital flight or laundering, tech-enabled criminal infrastructure: e.g., encrypted phones (Phantom Secure), dark web hosting, or cartel-facilitated Bitcoin laundering. Not to mention major economy sector capture under the guise of "luxury technocommunism" but enables international crime and tax avoidance.
I'm sure many books have been written about Newsom. I won't go there.
RBAC for example. Not everyone has and should have the same kind of access. Even at my dayjob I can imagine use cases where it would be inappropriate to provide certain data even to some coworker internally.
> Accordingly, SB 34 does not permit California LEAs to share ALPR information
with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement
agencies. This prohibition applies to ALPR database(s) that LEAs access through private or public vendors
who maintain ALPR information collected from multiple databases and/or public agencies.
I’ve had my comments removed in the past for saying this, but HN has become toxic the past few years.
I’ve been ok with the nerd sniping, it’s one of the best parts of HN - but recently I’ve noticed a fair amount of disgusting comments and takes.
These users I am often fascinated by, so of course when I view their HN post history it’s all mostly edgy hatred or whataboutism.
I think the biggest issue is this forum has been circulated on X far too often and the gates being wide open, people love to come in thinking they want to disrupt civil concourse for sake of diversion.
I do sometimes wonder how this forum would look if it was only limited to people who either run, work, or worked at a Y company.
edit: also a quick thank you to the mods who I know do their best. this thread is yet another example simply based on the amount of flagged comments
> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access.
Shoutout to 404 Media’s reporting on this, it’s causing states to take action against Flock. I’m unsure if oversight would’ve kicked in without this reporting.
Continue with the rest of the paragraph: "Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access."
These were approved by governments that promised the data would never be shared with the feds. Only in the most lawyer bullshit word gymnastics could you arrive at the conclusion there is nothing to see here. You are being intellectually dishonest.
It is a federal law, and thus enforcement should be happening on the federal level. The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement. The states are fully within their rights to withhold state law enforcement resources to focus on state laws.
>The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement.
Local law enforcement should not just enforce the law of the specific city they are in. They should enforce all applicable laws: city, county, state, country, etc.
Because the drugs are 100x worse than alcohol. These drug addicts behavior is worse than alcoholics.
I’d rather live in a society where people don’t need to turn to drugs. And I would prefer building a coalition of like minded people and stamp out druggies and their enablers.
Funnily enough, I don't imagine there are many Honduran drug dealers in the kitchens, soccer fields, farms, and home depots where ICE is focusing their efforts these days.
True. They also do not hold insurance and typically do not have drivers licenses. Although CA will give one to anyone with a pulse...
Having been hit twice by non-insured, non-licensed drivers with no paperwork or legal status, they got off free while I had to pay for their crimes, damage and increased insurance rates for years. No sympathy at all for cheaters. Arrest them and confiscate their cars.
1. It's impossible to track X for only one group. In order to know who is in that group, and who is not, you need to be tracking more than that, necessarily.
Meaning, if you want to track which vehicles belong to "illegal immigrants", you need to know which vehicles belong to citizens. That means YOU. You are not exempt from this data collection.
2. This data can, and will, be used for evil. Anyone who believes that governments will always act in benevolence are, frankly, stupid. You're not stupid, are you? Okay, then you should be beginning to see the problem here.
3. Even IF the government always acts benevolently, and that's a huge fucking if, that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
Even if you are innocent, there is a risk here! Who is to say you won't accidentally be identified as an "illegal immigrant"? Is that a risk you're willing to take? For me, that risk is absolutely unacceptable - especially considering the sheer incompetence of our law enforcement agencies and the current administration.
I mean, our country is currently being run by drunkards and yes-men. Do you really trust these imbeciles to never make a mistake, ever? No, right? They've already made quiet a few mistakes, right? Remember the whole Signal thing? Yeah.
You have to look at the big picture here. You're advocating for a system that requires an absolutely unbelievable amount of trust in order to run properly. Do you really, truly, not see the flaws in that?
A state law can only be illegal if it violates the state's own constitution or the US constitution.
States are not obligated to participate in the enforcement of federal law, and are entitled to control the official conduct of their own officers and agencies.
If a state has a law that prohibits local police officers from furnishing data to federal agencies, that law is completely valid, and officers that act contrary to it are in violation of state law.
It’s strange to me that we see people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and many people consider lawfulness to be sufficient justification. No, right and wrong don’t derive from laws. It’s supposed to be the other way round.
if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
We already agreed "right and wrong" when we enacted certain laws. Any more complicated than that and you might as well live in a war zone. You don't get to cherry-pick laws because your definition of "right" doesn't align to what the democratic process concluded. You want to change it, go vote for it.
It is illegal to spend state money (i.e. wages for state and local police) to enforce federal law (the feds have their own budget for that).
California law also makes it illegal to do federal enforcement with state resources and specifically makes sharing this license plate information with federal investigators by state and local police illegal.
This has nothing to do with the supremacy of federal law over state law. It has to do with who does the enforcement of these laws. It is similarly illegal for me to enforce federal law, but I am certainly bound by it.
In fact, under well-established constitutional law it is illegal for the federal government to attempt to compel state governments to enforce federal law. US states are sovereign in their own right and are not administrative arms of the federal government.
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
The federal government and DOJ has declined to prosecute Marijuana, but they definitely have the right to do so.
No -- states repealing their own laws against marijuana have nothing to do with federal law, and do not prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws in any way. The states are not obligated to implement their own policies in order to further federal interests, nor to participate in the enforcement of federal law.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says that federal laws are supreme over state laws. Therefore, it is illegal not to comply with federal laws.
Which specific federal law is being violated here by SB34?
The Supremacy Clause is regulated, in part, by the Tenth Amendment, which states…
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Perhaps an inquiry will show otherwise, but there are plenty of reasons ICE via CHP might be looking for a vehicle that aren't related to immigration law enforcement (perhaps they're looking for a truck full of smuggled contraband, for example).
> Under a decade-old state law, California police are prohibited from sharing data from automated license plate readers with out-of-state and federal agencies. Attorney General Rob Bonta affirmed that fact in a 2023 notice to police.
The law only prohibits the sharing of data if it's being used for immigration law enforcement. ICE doesn't just bust undocumented migrants, they also investigate all kinds of other crimes (like smuggled contraband), which is something the CHP would also presumably be involved with. It's perfectly legal to share data if it's not being used in an immigration case.
I mean, California Highway Patrol seems to disagree.
> “If any CHP personnel requested license plate data on behalf of ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement, that would be a blatant violation of both state law and longstanding department policy,” the spokesperson wrote. “If these allegations are confirmed, there will be consequences.”
The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up.
These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies. Agreed that this program was a bad idea, but the wider issue that law enforcement agencies can and do wantonly disregard direct orders from the state. There's the direct issue of impact on people as a result, and the more intangible idea of the questionable legitimacy of a government that is not able to control its own enforcement agencies.
This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it. Lacking that, it seems a reasonable inference that enforcement agencies are no longer bound by the will of the people and are in fact the ruling government.
> The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies.
You're correct, but the bigger picture here is: privacy violation rely on benevolence.
We're completely at the whim of parties more powerful than us, and we MUST trust that they will act in our best interests.
Now, we could just hope and cross our fingers that people are good people forever. Do you think that's going to be the case? Because I don't. So the only path forward that makes any sense is to simply not give bad actors the potential to even be bad. Meaning, we shouldn't even collect this data.
We have so many laws of this variety, which rely on our leaders remaining benevolent. This is in stark contrast to the US constitution, which explicitly says NOT to rely on benevolence, and rather construct systems so that we can dismantle our leadership should the time come.
> This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it.
That’s not going to happen. Cross out that sentence and reason as if we’ve already asked for that and it failed. We’ve heard this song too many times to pretend we don’t know the first verse.
2 replies →
Aren't those agencies doing exactly what the government is expecting them to do? So yes the government isn't willing to control - because the agencies are doing whatever the government isn't willing to say in the open because... elections and other technicalities. Thus, there's no repercussions swift or slow, because who should complain? Calling your representative only does so much, and if you do a mass protest you get labeled and possibly worse. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. Just a bit.
The US has a long history of agencies that decide by themselves to do things that are frequently illicit with the excuse that they're protecting the public. From police to 3 letter agencies, they're all operating illegal programs that should be stoped by the public. Whenever someone tries it, they protect their power using the excuse that they're doing this for the "benefit" of democracy or some similar BS.
It's a lesson people haven't learned in 80 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
For any dataset you collect, think about how it can be miss-used. Because in all likelihood it will. Maybe not by you. But maybe by your successor. Or the hacker.
Although it is interesting how inconsistently this principle of is applied to other areas. For example, if you come to HN and advocate against encryption or AI because they can amplify the dangers of bad actors, you are going to be met by fierce opposition. So why do these hypothetical bad actors only become valid concerns in certain conversations?
29 replies →
Its noteworthy to me that it took till 1943 for the reality of the threat to be taken seriously for this outcome
People making parallels I feel have been inaccurate, as the parallels right now are much closer to Europe's 1933 happenings, and people act like 1945's happenings is what will happen the very next day
Not sure what to make of that, just noticing that these particular "resistances" didn't have a prior allegory to watch, and made these choices eventually, and still how late into the story we know that these things occurred
15 replies →
Interestingly, as a direct outcome of the Nazis misusing this data Germany did not have a census for the longest time.
Here is an article from 1987 on the German protests against the new census, that was also the last Germany-led census: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/10/world/germans-stand-up-no... (BUT Germany has fairly strict rules on registration of your place of living, so perhaps a census is now unnecessary)
1 reply →
Before the Nazi's invaded the main guy who advocated for the civil registry which allowed the Nazi's to easily find jewish people went to his grave believing he did nothing wrong in advocating for such a database.
Clearly we all need to be thinking much more deeply on these issues.
21 replies →
Fair enough, but it is also valid to be angry at your local law enforcement if they are acting against the community's preferences. Especially when local law enforcement is breaking state law in the process.
Maybe true, but at a certain point you're just getting angry at the wind for blowing. The system is a scorpion: It cannot, will not go against its nature.
7 replies →
The greater community, i.e. the United States, may have different preferences than San Francisco.
2 replies →
But that would put them between federal law vs state law and federal law supersedes state law and state law supersedes local laws.
4 replies →
Why not be angry at all of them?
As someone who works with sensitive healthcare data, I can tell you that the mere existence of a dataset doesn't guarantee its misuse, nor it does it absolve anyone who interacts with that data of responsibility for proper stewardship.
Yes, you are right that we should think carefully before creating a sensitive dataset. If we insist on creating such a dataset, the people involved must put in place guardrails for stewardship of those datasets. But the stewards of that data, past, present, and future, also share responsibility.
Of course if the incentive structures don't line up with concern for mitigation of harm to vulnerable people as is the case with law enforcement in the US, then all of that is out the window.
Anyway, what you have written implies that we need not think about accountability for those who misuse of datasets after they are created, which is clearly absurd as I and anyone else familiar with healthcare data can tell you.
Also, be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020. If an organization consistently behaves in a way we don't like, we should seek alternatives to that organization, not continuously act surprised when they act out and keep giving them more money.
> be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020
This was tried. It generated a generational backlash against the left as petty crime and visible homelessness rose.
To the extent police reform has historically worked, it’s been by rebooting a police department. (Think: replacing the Mets with the NYPD.) Not replacing police with a hippie circle.
82 replies →
These people were mostly defeated in elections and the ones promising to shovel even more money got elected, just look at Eric Adams in NYC.
I seriously hope what is happening right now finally radicalizes the rest of the population that law enforcement as it is right now does not work for the public interest.
2 replies →
If you defund police, what do you think will be cut first? The control organs and oversight, or the thing they should oversee?
4 replies →
"Defund the police" was and remains wildly unpopular with almost everyone, especially minorities (as a reminder to any of those out touch reading this: there are large racial disparities in who is affected by crime, particularly violent crime) . It was quintessential "progressives are out of touch" ammunition, not only used by republicans (obviously), but also establishment democrats in competitive districts.
As another commenter posted, its about not allowing the creation of the data set in the first place.
We really need everyone in this country to go read "Nothing to Hide" by Daniel Solove, because thats how this crazy shit gets through in the first place: innocuous citizens go "Sure, I got nothing to hide"
To be fair, systems like Flocksafety really help departments being squeezed for funding. It's one of the ways the system is sold. It's an effective tool.
1 reply →
I'm not sure how to think about this. It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
At some point it seems like we have to trust that governments can act responsibly, in the interest of voters -- in this case local voters, or we should all just pack it in.
The other thought: I get the thought that people will always care more about local concerns of car break ins, shoplifting, and quality of life than larger ideas like privacy and law enforcement abuse. It seems to convince people to care about the larger issues, the local things have to be solved, and not just ignored.
I've lived in San Francisco for over 10 years now, and it's been disappointing to see the lack on progress on basic quality of life issues.
> It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
The only reason either of these happen is because law enforcement is lazy and dangerous.
We pretty much gave up on most traffic enforcement because law enforcement officers can't help shooting people they pull over. That's a problem - if they would just start acting somewhat decent, the PD would stop losing a few hundred million a year in lawsuits.
To be frank, I have no idea what law enforcement even does these days. They don't speed trap, they barely respond to calls, they're not pulling people over. Are they just sitting on their asses and getting a check, petrified of public discourse?
1 reply →
> At some point it seems like we have to trust that governments can act responsibly
Respectfully, I believe you have it backwards.
This same argument is true for every bit of authority we give to law enforcement agencies (and really, the government in general). We expect they'll use those powers responsibly and within the limitations that we've ascribed, but it's always a risk that they're used irresponsibly and in situations we don't approve of.
Yes, this is an argument for not giving them more authority than necessary, but it's also an argument for holding them accountable when they do act out of bounds.
To this point, any law that gives power to government officials also needs to have explicit and painful consequences for abuse of those powers. Civilians who break the law face punishment and penalties, but government employees are almost never held to account. That needs to change.
There are mobile survalience cameras systems at my very family friendly park. Everyone has asked the city to tow them away but they refuse. There was no vote on this.
Spraypaint?
1 reply →
A tire and some gasoline seems to work for the Brits.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
One or two cops locked up for it can also work wonders. But somehow the western world has come to believe that lots of pretty laws with no consequences for transgressions is a wonderful thing. I think not.
If you are a district attorney in a city, you depend on the help and cooperation of the police in your daily work. If you became unpopular with the police they can make your work very difficult and you could also become politically very unpopular. I think district attorneys and police want to do what they think is right but its very understandable to me why a DA does not want to prosecute police.
1 reply →
Click through to the law in question. It's the Civil Code not Criminal Code, and states, "an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm."
So you have to prove actual harm. You have to identify the individual person who caused the harm. You have to prove they knowingly caused the harm. You have to quantify the harm in monetary terms. Then you can sue them for actual damages + attorneys' fees.
2 replies →
> somehow the western world
Excuse me. While a minority of rabid Anarchists might agree with you, the vast majority of people in Denmark happen to really like our police force.
This is largely an American problem. Don't blame it on "the western world".
1 reply →
*no consequences for transgressions by anyone in law enforcement. Qualified immunity has snowballed into some serious bullshit.
> The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
In sharing the license plate data, how was the OPD enforcing the law? Which laws, exactly which laws, was the OPD enforcing?
11 replies →
> It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
By breaking a different one?
I mean, yeah, it's predictable. But it's not great.
4 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing
Nah, be mad at both the people who enabled the data collection and the agency that abused that data.
This should be grounds for laws that limit or eliminate the use of Flock Safety in the state, and laws that meaningfully punish agencies that use that data inappropriately as well as the individuals who authorized it.
> be angry at [...] the people among us [who] foolishly thought it [...] would be a good thing for alternative transportation
Yikes. That is one tortuous sentence you needed to construct just to blame this on leftists. I applaud your wordcraft. But no, that's ridiculous. Urban transit hippies are very much not to blame for ICE overreach. Just for the record.
>If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
Perhaps I am gifted, but I contain enough anger within for both guilty parties. However, the bulk of is aimed at the police who unambiguously broke the law and will face no consequences for doing so.
The opposite of this.
Do be angry at the people misusing the systems. Don't be angry at the people building them for good.
If someone points out that the system you're building can be abused, and you don't stop and come up with a solid plan to prevent abuse then you're just building the system for abuse.
14 replies →
If you build the system in a way that enables such highly predictable misuse, you do get to share part of the blame.
7 replies →
> Don't be angry at the people building them for good.
I am angry because the same people who've argued for years against the kinds of education systems that teach actual social systemic thinking and who've called me naive and cynical for suggesting their pretty toy is going to get people killed are now throwing up their hands and saying "how could we have known?"
Because we fucking told you, that's how.
1 reply →
Nope. If you're one of them, as a practitioner you should damn well be able to reasonably foresee the pathological use case. Hell, I only cut myself minimal slack for having grown up believing constant exhortations by Oldtimers that "Kid, no one in their right mind would do that," only to see my peer group replacing them do exactly what the Oldtimers were insistent that common sense dictated wouldn't be done.
It is on us to be realistic about how the systems we create will actually be used. I think we lost sight of that in the last couple decades, or figured it wasn't our problem. And the chickens have come home to roost.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A lot of people raised similar objections to dna databases, and later when those same databases was used by law enforcement. It did not take very long until law makers and law enforcement made i praxis that such data bases are up to grab for trawling through. Any objection is meet with the handful of cold cases that was closed because that trawling of data.
Sadly I dont see a realistic stop to the databases. If there are none, law makers will just dictate the creation of it. If there is one, they will argue terrorism or cold cases to start the process of getting access. If car manufacturers get gps logs, those will sooner or later end up being available to law enforcement. They currently have access to every call, when where and to whom. Every internet use. Every movement mobile phones does. Every payment through a credit card, where and to whom. Mass transports get more and more into personal tickets, and those get logged.
I hope we will see unreasonable searches to be expanded/enforcement against trawling of data, but i dont have any hope left to the idea that databases wont be created. Not even gdpr in eu stops law makers from dictating that databases must be created, or stopping law makers from trawling it.
Yeah, I think both things can be true: one is that it is absolutely utterly unacceptable to be in the year 2025 advocating for new data collection programs in the name of "fighting crime" - it should be absolutely abundantly clear to even the most naive of us now that A) the cops have absolutely zero interest in pursuing the kinds of crime we're actually interested in - the closure rate on shoplifting, car and package theft, and other property crime is basically zero, and that's not because the cops don't have enough resources, and B) any of these systems will be abused immediately to target whoever it is the feds have decided are the bad guy this week, be it palestine protestors, trans people, immigrants, ex-girlfriends, or whoever else we've decided is outside the circle of protection today.
At the same time, it's also absolutely goddamn unnacceptable that we've come to just accept that our LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser. There are systems that are intended to hold these groups accountable, and we need to keep pressing until they do, because throwing up our hands and just saying "Boys will be boys" ain't cutting it.
> LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser.
Well, they are unaccountable state-sanctioned gangs.
They can legally steal (forfeiture).
They can 'smell something' and legally trespass.
They can shoot and kill you for basically any reason. But they can fall back and say 'I thought they were reaching for a weapon'.
SCOTUS, even with more liberal justices, have repeatedly said they are shielded from 'official capacities', and that they have absolutely no requirement of protecting and serving.
1 reply →
> it is absolutely utterly unacceptable to be in the year 2025 advocating for new data collection programs in the name of "fighting crime"
I’m genuinely curious for data on whether these data have been helpful with property crime in San Francisco and Oakland.
You think the police have adequate resources to solve package theft? I’m sorry, what? That’s ridiculous. Here’s the 2023 stats for SF:
Porch thefts: 25,000 Cops: 2000
Obviously not all of those cops are on duty simultaneously, let’s assume they do a 12 hour shift every single day: they would have 25 porch thefts each to solve!
This isn’t a US centric phenomenon either: 70,000 cell phones were stolen in London last year.
3 replies →
I think the frog and the scorpion were both wrong
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
I think it's okay to be angry at public servants for "following orders" too.
We didn't let the Nazis get away with that bullshit for a good reason.
Sending people back to their home country, especially when 50% are criminals, is not the same as the holocaust. Comparing it to such is disgusting and insulting to the actual victims of Nazi violence.
ICE is often operating in a racist and dehumanizing way, but it is nowhere near the level of organized atrocity that it is regularly compared to.
I agree that it this comparison is overblown, and do not believe in general that this kind of overstatements do any good to the cause of those who make them.
There is something in common though: that very dangerous belief that lying and ignoring the law is justified by the end goal. Speaking of lies, where did you get this statistics that 50% of expulsed immigrants are criminals? Even their own statistics (https://www.ice.gov/statistics) show that a small minority have ever been convicted (and I would assume that most of those convictions would not be very serious crimes)
2 replies →
50% are criminals? Do you have a source for that?
6 replies →
The Nazis actually openly considered deportation before settling on the Final Solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
The Holocaust involved quite a bit of large-scale deportation to concentration camps.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/how/deport...
> In the autumn of 1941, approximately 338,000 Jews remained in Greater Germany. Until this point, Hitler had been reluctant to deport Jews in the German Reich until the war was over because of a fear of resistance and retaliation from the German population. But, in the autumn of 1941, key Nazi figures contributed to mounting pressure on Hitler to deport the German Jews. This pressure culminated in Hitler ordering the deportation of all Jews still in the Greater German Reich and Protectorate between 15-17 September 1941.
Nah, I think as a society we should be able to set up speed cameras to crack down on speeding, without worrying about how it could be misused maliciously against law abiding motorists. Get angry at the people doing bad things. Otherwise we shouldn't build anything that could potentially be misused.
if you read the article, this didn't happen.
Voters will nearly always fall for "Think of the children!" Trying to point out how bad of an argument that is has only earned me screaming arguments from my wife. Some people do not prioritize liberty, and so, get less as result of their choices.
Can't they sue the bejeesus out of them?
I heard CA built up a large amount of money anticipating a lot of litigation against Trump 2.0.
But, but, but, "I have nothing to hide.........."
[flagged]
I was going to call you out for hyperbole, especially since the (AI) search overview had pedestrian deaths for 2025 at only 4, but previous years at around 10-15, which is pretty bad.
https://www.oaklandca.gov/Public-Safety-Streets/Traffic-Safe...
1 reply →
I live in Oakland too, and I hate hate hate that we're enabling masked, unnamed government enforcers to kidnap people off the streets and potentially deport them without even verifying they are who they are thought to be.
I also know that we cannot afford to keep letting criminals run this town and destroy public property and kill people on the roads and get away with it
1 reply →
I live in Oakland too, and was taken aback at first by calling it a killing field... until I actually admitted to myself that my greatest safety fear here is getting wiped out on foot or bike by some of the most atrocious drivers in the entire bay area with near-zero traffic enforcement.
[flagged]
The post you're responding to isn't arguing shifting blame. They're arguing that instrumental actions should be included. If you think expanding the scope of accountability dilutes the pool, that's another argument. But at least have good faith. They're not your enemy.
11 replies →
These two things are one in the same. Every data broker knows exactly who their ultimate clients are. That's why Palantir never broke a sweat losing bazillions of dollars for years and years and years. Their final goal is to be essentially an indispensable arm of the police surveillance state.
[flagged]
Subsistence farming isn't a great life.
1 reply →
Flock is absolutely designed to facilitate and encourage this kind of abuse. They have extensive data sharing built in to their system while promising agencies that the users "own" the data.
My local police department just recently got a grant for these and is in the process of setting them up, and I'm working with a number of local technologists and activists to shut it down. We are showing up at every police commission meeting and every city council meeting and keeping actively engaged with local press. I spent almost three hours yesterday having coffee with a police commissioner and I have meeting requests from a number of other local officials. There are similar efforts ongoing in other cities across the U.S.
An interesting one to keep an eye on is Cedar Rapids, which includes a neat teardown of one of the devices: https://eyesoffcr.org/blog/blog-8.html
Immediately after setting up the system -- before all of the devices were even fully online -- our local PD began sharing access with departments in non-sanctuary states. When we asked questions about it, they hid that section from their transparency page. We are cooking them publicly for that.
Flock is VC-funded commercialized mass surveillance.
Chiming in to add crowd-sourced flock camera locations: https://deflock.me/
I live in Oakland and this is a difficult topic.
The type of crime common here is nearly impossible to address without technological assistance. People steal cars, drive into neighborhoods, then break into other cars and houses. They're gone sometimes before a 911 call can even be made, and far before the police arrive. The criminals know this and are just incredibly brazen about it. They'll finish the job with people watching and recording because they know there's no way for them to be caught. People get followed home and held up in their driveway. The criminals are often armed, and people have been shot and killed for even the mildest of resistance. One guy was killed a block from where I was standing for knocking on the window of a getaway car of some guys stealing another car in broad daylight.
Leaving aside broader and more fundamental fixes for crime, which are much longer term projects, the only near-term thing that actually reduces this kind of crime is arrest and conviction rates. In SF, drones have helped reduced car break-ins, because they've actually caught some crews. Oakland doesn't have drones that I know of, but Flock cameras have enabled enough tracking for police to sometimes actually find these people quickly, even several miles away, and make an arrest.
Those are just the plain facts of the situation. It's understandable that people want some kind of solution here. Without at least starting from that understanding, it'll be very difficult to convince people that a solution that is having a positive impact already is not worth the other costs and risks.
And to me, this is the core conflict at a really high level: the economic and societal fixes for crime are usually opposed by the same people who abuse these kind of surveillance systems for authoritarian purposes. To me it's no coincidence that their preferred solution to crime just happens to help them keep an eye on the whole population.
There's a hugely material difference between deterring local property crime and handing ICE this information.
ICE is deporting people to death camps (e.g. CECOT), not giving people due process, operating masked and with military support. ICE is a gestapo in all but name.
By all means, find ways to get your community police departments to address crime in your communities. Work with systems outside of police to fix the systemic root causes (crime doesn't "just happen", it's a symptom of other problems). But you don't need the secret police to fix car jackings and break-ins.
My comment shouldn't be read in any way as supporting ICE or giving ICE this information. Doing so is clearly illegal under California law, and what ICE is doing right now is terrible.
But the prevailing sentiment in these comments is the the cameras shouldn't exist at all, not just that the data shouldn't be shared with ICE. My comment is about how useful the cameras are today. If you want them to not exist you need to understand why they do and probably offer up an alternate solution to the very real problems they address.
[flagged]
[flagged]
14 replies →
[flagged]
11 replies →
This is hardly a philosophical debate. Oakland is a mess. The previous police chief was fired, and the person that fired him, the mayor, was recalled by voters. And the DA in 2023-2024 was recalled by voters.
The governor warned Oakland in the past to reverse its policy on not engaging in police pursuits. Not surprisingly, the new police chief is proposing changing that policy.
https://oaklandside.org/2025/05/23/oakland-police-pursuit-po...
[YC S17]
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
Between this and the abortion story [1] (CEO deflected blame and took zero ownership [2]), it looks like Flock leans into enabling this sort of lawlessness. They should be torn out of our cities.
Do we have a list of their clients?
EDIT: Apparently my town installed them in 2023 [3]. Inciting a couple council members over for dinner this week.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-te...
[2] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-u...
[3] https://atlasofsurveillance.org/search?vendor=Flock+Safety
What a ridiculous response. Just say "Flock cameras are designed for law enforcement to use however they see fit, even if it's to chase down abortion-getters, even if it's to kidnap people off the street into unmarked vans"
1 reply →
"The first public safety operating system that eliminates crime."
I've heard of "startup founder hubris" before but this is a new level.
> Our flock of hard-working employees thrive in a positive and inclusive environment
I'm honestly surprised they weren't too woke for them.
Occasional reminder that YC application required applicants to give an eample of how they cheated a system for personal gain. YC prefers "naughty" founders over honest ones.
I was curious about this and found the precise wording of the question:
> Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage.
1 reply →
YC prefers potential profit over anything else it seems, otherwise I can't imagine how this would have gone through.
1 reply →
What YC is (actually) asking: For example, When was a time you went the extra mile to get a job interviewers attention
What HN thinks YC I asking: "how they cheated a system for personal gain"
lol.
Source: Me, I got into YC by answering the question that way.
2 replies →
Just so everyone remembers: automated collection is an unlawful search by the constitution. Stop advocating for a police state and expecting something different. (Mandatory registration of objects, mandatory medical procedures, mandatory facial accessories, mandatory automatic government payments to fund all of this)
> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches
Does this mean it wasn't exactly to Oakland Police that violated state law, but rather other CA based law enforcement entities?
it's also possible the other agencies only shared findings rather than specific records.
For example if the law says "plate reader records cannot be shared" and the CHP just confirms the presence of the records , and does not share the records, no violation occurred.
You did a good job reading the article from bottom to top. The headline and lead are usually misleading.
One question is whether OPD violated state law by leaving their data open for anyone to search.
When they signed up to these systems, did they know that federal agencies could search their data without OPD needing to do anything?
But from my quote, it sounds like federal agencies couldn't actually search the data themselves. Rather the Feds would do something like make a request to the Sacramento PD (random example), and then Sacramento would then search the OPD database, and then, presumably, give that data to the feds.
"The OPD (Oakland PD) didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times —
So the headline is misleading. It seems like oakland made their records available to state agencies like CHP, and one of those agencies queried the records and shared the query results with federal agencies.
And the article doesn't specify which results were shared.
So it's clear Oakland didn't violate the law, and there is reasonable doubt that the other agencies didn't violate the law either.
Judgements come from judges, not journalists.
"I posted the answer key openly in the hallway, how could I possibly know people would use this to cheat on their homework!"
They are aware this is happening and are taking no action. They are as culpable as the other agencies.
8 replies →
for anyone wondering how this was uncovered.
> "If these allegations are confirmed, there will be consequences."
Sure.
Cops do the thing they always wanted to do as soon as leadership vaguely hints that they won't be punished for it, what a surprise.
US seems like a free for all with sensitive data lately
It is. Some of it is being accessed illegally (ICE has been given full access to the IRS, which is a violation of the fifth amendment, local LE sharing it in contravention with state laws), and some of it is being accessed legally (local LE sharing it in compliance with state laws).
The criminals are, sadly, running the circus, and they are acting like they'll never lose power.
At this point they're unlikely to lose power unless there's a military coup dismantling the entire extreme right.
4 replies →
Free for the rich and for government agencies.
Lately?
The only implication that your information was ever safe in America was marketing. Programmers should have been able to read the privacy-destroying tea leaves a decade ago.
There’s a lot of casual corruption here. Local cops get deputized as marshalls and get overtime, etc.
Isn't there a whole trope about how the government is stupid and inefficient because agencies don't help each other out? Seems like in general sharing data is a good thing.
Questions are, should the police have the data and are our immigration policies correct. This issues need to be fix at the legal level. If we really want to change this we need to decide what we want immigration to be and not half ass it by looking the other way.
Unfortunately typical, cops have always and will continue to act like a gang free from any consequences.
If you wanna do something about it then help turn the surveillance spotlight back at them: https://app.copdb.org/
ALPR (automated license plate readers) are used across state lines to pull out drug mules and other stuff. Many local law enforcement employees are federal task forces involving drugs/guns/cartels/violence. Obviously, Feds have hands on these databases.
If you don’t think this system should be used, it should never have been built in the first place. Relying on a state law to prevent sharing data sounds rather naive.
Second, the page barely mentions ice, title is begging for clicks.
> “We take privacy seriously…
A gun has a trigger. It is a system intended to be used.
You cannot legally use it to rob a bank, though. Specific uses of that system are forbidden.
An ICBM has a trigger, too.
But you can't buy one at Wal Mart, and be trusted to only pull that trigger in situations when the uses of that system are legal! We don't sell them to consumers because the anticipated and obvious outcomes are harmful.
Flock Safety generated a treasure trove of highly sensitive data. In theory, there's nothing wrong with collecting that data, or even using it to investigate specific crimes with searches of limited scope under a judicial warrant. It's only harmful when used inappropriately... but no one should be surprised when that happened.
Law enforcement types don’t think of doing their job as equivalent to “robbing a bank,” so the thought process you are relying on can’t work.
The article mentions ICE usage, including a link to an entire article about it. Nothing wrong with the title mentioning it.
It mentions many usages, but only one made it to the title.
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation laws like interracial marriage which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
Example: Alabama was the last state to remove its ban on interracial marriage from its statutes in 2000, though this was largely symbolic as interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
There is probably a specific federal law enforcement authority that may or may not be in conflict with the state law. It's unclear if this is a 10th amendment violation for the state or if federal law enforcement is granted this authority
Federal Law takes precedence over State, but the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from directly compelling states to implement or enforce federal law. So local law enforcement is under no obligation to pass information to ICE or assist ICE. It has been ruled on time and time again, from 1842 when Justice Joseph Story affirmed it [1] to Justice Samuel Alito in 2018 [2].
[1] “The clause relating to fugitive slaves is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any State. It might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation to insist that the States are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the National Government nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.” Prigg v. Pennsylvania https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/
[2] “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-476
My comment shouldn't be read as supporting the activities or really disagreeing with your statement. Was merely indicating that the legal authorities are not as clear cut as the article suggests.
To use your examples:
1) enforcement of borders is a power delegated to the federal government, and it's arguable these activities are within scope.
2) This is not a regulatory program but an enforcement activity (though you could argue that the state doesn't need to support these activities)
:shrug: This is why we have lawyers
I don't think there is a 10th amendment violation or a question of federal authority. States can't be compelled to perform federal law enforcement because of the 10th amendment. States are accordingly allowed to prevent their own law enforcement from performing federal law enforcement. If state law enforcement aids the feds anyway, then they are just breaking state law.
A 10th amendment violation would be if the feds require the state to perform federal law enforcement.
Federal authority is relevant if they e.g. raided state law enforcement offices to take the data without consent, but in this case they are just given the data by state officers.
We don't know what degree of pressure was or was not exerted on state authorities to compel them to support ICE.
Also, I don't think sharing data would be considered enforcing federal law.
You ever notice how basically no justice comes out of the criminal justice system?
Datasets are created to be used. Once created they will eventually likely be used for purposes other than the original intention. Depending on the power dynamics in play this may be more or less likely.
There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good!
Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything.
We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar.
Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening.
That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature?
The local executive is breaking legislature's law.
The governor should be ordering state police and lawyers to prosecute these local officials, or else the legislature should impeach the governor.
The system in place for dealing with corrupt law enforcement is federal law enforcement. It should be obvious why our ever growing police state ruled by fascists is not going to police itself.
The only feasible response to lawlessness of those empowered to uphold the law is to periodically remind them that legal authority is derived from the will of the people. Thomas Jefferson said this more elegantly than I could.
> What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature?
State and local attorneys general.
In this case, an individual harmed may also bring civil claims under California law.
Don’t hold your breath.
>>What is the mechanism for enforcing laws passed by legislature?
Probably the same as it is at the federal level - voting out of office. During the Biden/Harris term there was a complete dereliction of duty when it came to border enforcement. Actually it was worse than that - they helped people illegally cross the border, even flew them in on the taxpayer dime. This is why we have President Trump today.
It was Flock? Surprise, surprise…
you don't even need license plate data. Every car emits 4 radio frequencies which make you uniquely identifiable even without a camera or plate. We can easily track (and they do) this information. But at least we know our tires arent flat!
source for "they do"?
Well now I don't feel so bad that my tire pressure sensors have been dead for years.
Cops doing crime.
[dead]
It’s illegal because California made it illegal for municipal police to cooperate with federal agents. Trump and future Republicans will use this to accuse Democratic sanctuary cities of being lawless.
illegal?
[dead]
[dead]
This is political. Keep it off hacker news.
Everything is political.
Being "apolitical" is just an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
I can't believe this is such an unpopular opinion. I don't think HN is a place for me anymore.
[dead]
[flagged]
> Federal law trumps state law.
Constitution trumps Federal law.
Tenth Amendment:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Feds are welcome to enforce immigration law. They cannot require California to participate. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10-4-2/AL...
> Federal law trumps state law.
This is absolutely not true in general, and the constitution explicitly circumscribes the jurisdiction of federal law.
It's also a very divisive and sensitive topic.
I think we've been playing "everyone gets along" for far too long, and it's become obvious to the meek that people are gaming the system whilst pretending to get along. A correction is necessary, and that's precisely what you're witnessing here.
The "no talking politics" crowd are just enforcers of the current power structure.
[dead]
[flagged]
A fairly key aspect of American federalism is there are a lot of things the Feds can't force states to participate in, as provided in the Tenth Amendment. (Known as anti-commandeering doctrine.)
Sadly, Wickard v. Filburn effectively ended this.[1] Also the feds don't have to use force against the states to get compliance. They can do things like not provide funding for freeway maintenance[2], or penalize individuals for not participating (as was the case with the Affordable Care Act).
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
2 replies →
This is one Supreme Court case from going away.
3 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
No state is required to criminalize the same things that the feds do, nor to help the feds enforce their laws.
It was. You are maybe forgetting the marijuana industry.
Genuinely, this. How many green card holders are suddenly at risk of having said card revoked and being tossed into a concentration camp after visiting a dispensary in a legal state? Democrats failure to amend the law as the public wants is going to come back to bite minorities in the ass once again.
That's a really loaded way to put it, but okay.
Yeah, I'd rather we not terrorize the nation and build a national goon squad with a larger budget than most national militaries. I'd rather that goon squad not be unidentifiable and masked. And if we're willing to spend $100+ billion on a law enforcement program, I'd rather it be increasing police wages and firing bad cops and hiring/properly training new cops.
I'd rather not spend $100B on LEO at all, frankly.
There are other ways to crack down on immigration than ramping up the surveillance and police state.
edit: I am disappointed that the responder ignored the six points I made, all of which could be discussed, and instead went for a hollow whatabout.
[flagged]
1 reply →
Uh no. Tech, agriculture, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation. People love to hate on California but it really is the most productive state in the US. Facts please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#/media/F...
Not sure why the down votes. You are correct. The intro from your link:
"The economy of the State of California is the largest in the United States, with a $4.103 trillion gross state product (GSP) as of 2024.[1] It is the largest sub-national economy in the world. If California was an independent nation, it would rank as the fourth largest economy in the world in nominal terms, behind Germany and ahead of Japan."
The corruption in California is well known and frankly blatant.
Money laundering through tech startups or crypto shell companies, luxury real estate purchases by Chinese or Russian oligarchs for capital flight or laundering, tech-enabled criminal infrastructure: e.g., encrypted phones (Phantom Secure), dark web hosting, or cartel-facilitated Bitcoin laundering. Not to mention major economy sector capture under the guise of "luxury technocommunism" but enables international crime and tax avoidance.
I'm sure many books have been written about Newsom. I won't go there.
4 replies →
[flagged]
Would you apply the same framing to marijuana legalization?
[flagged]
The people of California desired a license plate reader system for certain purposes, but not others. The Tenth Amendment permits them to do so.
RBAC for example. Not everyone has and should have the same kind of access. Even at my dayjob I can imagine use cases where it would be inappropriate to provide certain data even to some coworker internally.
This is a Chesterton’s fence situation. If you can’t identify the problem that this law solves then you aren’t qualified to remove it.
The law exists for a reason, I encourage you to imagine what that might be.
Because that’s not their jurisdiction and are not allowed by the people who pay their salary?
[flagged]
Cool, but SB34 doesn't let this particular set of data be shared with out-of-state agencies for those purposes either.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf
> Accordingly, SB 34 does not permit California LEAs to share ALPR information with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. This prohibition applies to ALPR database(s) that LEAs access through private or public vendors who maintain ALPR information collected from multiple databases and/or public agencies.
They would not be able to refuse a valid federal warrant, however.
[flagged]
To break the law?
What law?
4 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
Seems like it, the user's other comments are an atrocious downgrade to HN standards.
I’ve had my comments removed in the past for saying this, but HN has become toxic the past few years.
I’ve been ok with the nerd sniping, it’s one of the best parts of HN - but recently I’ve noticed a fair amount of disgusting comments and takes.
These users I am often fascinated by, so of course when I view their HN post history it’s all mostly edgy hatred or whataboutism.
I think the biggest issue is this forum has been circulated on X far too often and the gates being wide open, people love to come in thinking they want to disrupt civil concourse for sake of diversion.
I do sometimes wonder how this forum would look if it was only limited to people who either run, work, or worked at a Y company.
edit: also a quick thank you to the mods who I know do their best. this thread is yet another example simply based on the amount of flagged comments
5 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Try reading to the end of the paragraph.
> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access.
Shoutout to 404 Media’s reporting on this, it’s causing states to take action against Flock. I’m unsure if oversight would’ve kicked in without this reporting.
Continue with the rest of the paragraph: "Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches — which appears to mirror a strategy first reported by 404 Media, in which federal agencies that don’t have contracts with Flock turn to local police for backdoor access."
These were approved by governments that promised the data would never be shared with the feds. Only in the most lawyer bullshit word gymnastics could you arrive at the conclusion there is nothing to see here. You are being intellectually dishonest.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It is a federal law, and thus enforcement should be happening on the federal level. The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement. The states are fully within their rights to withhold state law enforcement resources to focus on state laws.
>The feds don't get to pass laws and then burden the states with their enforcement.
Local law enforcement should not just enforce the law of the specific city they are in. They should enforce all applicable laws: city, county, state, country, etc.
5 replies →
This whole mess started because we haven't been doing #1 when it comes to immigration.
[flagged]
Why not legalise [some more] drugs to help solve the problems?
The unfortunates get the fix. The dealers won't deal. The state gets the money.
Because the drugs are 100x worse than alcohol. These drug addicts behavior is worse than alcoholics.
I’d rather live in a society where people don’t need to turn to drugs. And I would prefer building a coalition of like minded people and stamp out druggies and their enablers.
Supply and demand. Crush them both.
6 replies →
Same
Funnily enough, I don't imagine there are many Honduran drug dealers in the kitchens, soccer fields, farms, and home depots where ICE is focusing their efforts these days.
Its all fucking performative.
Tracking the vehicles registered to illegal immigrants shouldn't be a controversial subject
How about tracking the vehicles of people who are subject to retribution for political reasons?
How about tracking the vehicles of people who have similar names as supposedly illegal immigrants?
How about tracking the vehicles of people who are legal immigrants?
[flagged]
2 replies →
True. They also do not hold insurance and typically do not have drivers licenses. Although CA will give one to anyone with a pulse...
Having been hit twice by non-insured, non-licensed drivers with no paperwork or legal status, they got off free while I had to pay for their crimes, damage and increased insurance rates for years. No sympathy at all for cheaters. Arrest them and confiscate their cars.
First they came for the illegal immigrants and I did not speak out, because I was not an illegal immigrant.
Then they came for the legal immigrants they didn't like and I did not speak out, because I was not a legal immigrant. [0]
Then they came for their political enemies [1] and I did not speak up, because I was not their political enemy.
Then they came for me - and there was noone left to speak for me.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/01/trump-zohran...
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-lock-her-up-...
do we track the vehicles of people cited for jaywalking? because "illegal immigration" is mainly a civil offense, not a criminal offense.
is the penalty for jaywalking deportation? are jaywalkers not authorized to be in the United States?
Also a large proportion of illegal aliens crossed the border illegally. Which therefore makes them criminals, since improper entry is a federal crime.
2 replies →
Sigh. It's controversial because:
1. It's impossible to track X for only one group. In order to know who is in that group, and who is not, you need to be tracking more than that, necessarily.
Meaning, if you want to track which vehicles belong to "illegal immigrants", you need to know which vehicles belong to citizens. That means YOU. You are not exempt from this data collection.
2. This data can, and will, be used for evil. Anyone who believes that governments will always act in benevolence are, frankly, stupid. You're not stupid, are you? Okay, then you should be beginning to see the problem here.
3. Even IF the government always acts benevolently, and that's a huge fucking if, that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
Even if you are innocent, there is a risk here! Who is to say you won't accidentally be identified as an "illegal immigrant"? Is that a risk you're willing to take? For me, that risk is absolutely unacceptable - especially considering the sheer incompetence of our law enforcement agencies and the current administration.
I mean, our country is currently being run by drunkards and yes-men. Do you really trust these imbeciles to never make a mistake, ever? No, right? They've already made quiet a few mistakes, right? Remember the whole Signal thing? Yeah.
You have to look at the big picture here. You're advocating for a system that requires an absolutely unbelievable amount of trust in order to run properly. Do you really, truly, not see the flaws in that?
Why is it illegal to uphold federal law? Isn't it the state law that is illegal in this case?
A state law can only be illegal if it violates the state's own constitution or the US constitution.
States are not obligated to participate in the enforcement of federal law, and are entitled to control the official conduct of their own officers and agencies.
If a state has a law that prohibits local police officers from furnishing data to federal agencies, that law is completely valid, and officers that act contrary to it are in violation of state law.
It’s strange to me that we see people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and many people consider lawfulness to be sufficient justification. No, right and wrong don’t derive from laws. It’s supposed to be the other way round.
if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
15 replies →
We already agreed "right and wrong" when we enacted certain laws. Any more complicated than that and you might as well live in a war zone. You don't get to cherry-pick laws because your definition of "right" doesn't align to what the democratic process concluded. You want to change it, go vote for it.
1 reply →
It is illegal to spend state money (i.e. wages for state and local police) to enforce federal law (the feds have their own budget for that).
California law also makes it illegal to do federal enforcement with state resources and specifically makes sharing this license plate information with federal investigators by state and local police illegal.
This has nothing to do with the supremacy of federal law over state law. It has to do with who does the enforcement of these laws. It is similarly illegal for me to enforce federal law, but I am certainly bound by it.
Which federal law exactly requires states to spend money to enforce federal law?
I'll give you a hint: none.
In fact, under well-established constitutional law it is illegal for the federal government to attempt to compel state governments to enforce federal law. US states are sovereign in their own right and are not administrative arms of the federal government.
Marijuana was legalized in contravention to federal law
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
The federal government and DOJ has declined to prosecute Marijuana, but they definitely have the right to do so.
1 reply →
No -- states repealing their own laws against marijuana have nothing to do with federal law, and do not prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws in any way. The states are not obligated to implement their own policies in order to further federal interests, nor to participate in the enforcement of federal law.
If you think it's illegal, explain how. Don't just toss out innuendos.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says that federal laws are supreme over state laws. Therefore, it is illegal not to comply with federal laws.
Which specific federal law is being violated here by SB34?
The Supremacy Clause is regulated, in part, by the Tenth Amendment, which states…
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There's nothing here showing the law was broken.
Perhaps an inquiry will show otherwise, but there are plenty of reasons ICE via CHP might be looking for a vehicle that aren't related to immigration law enforcement (perhaps they're looking for a truck full of smuggled contraband, for example).
?
> Under a decade-old state law, California police are prohibited from sharing data from automated license plate readers with out-of-state and federal agencies. Attorney General Rob Bonta affirmed that fact in a 2023 notice to police.
[flagged]
6 replies →
Very poorly written article.
The law only prohibits the sharing of data if it's being used for immigration law enforcement. ICE doesn't just bust undocumented migrants, they also investigate all kinds of other crimes (like smuggled contraband), which is something the CHP would also presumably be involved with. It's perfectly legal to share data if it's not being used in an immigration case.
6 replies →
I mean, California Highway Patrol seems to disagree.
> “If any CHP personnel requested license plate data on behalf of ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement, that would be a blatant violation of both state law and longstanding department policy,” the spokesperson wrote. “If these allegations are confirmed, there will be consequences.”
You missed the key phrase "for the purposes of immigration enforcement."
If they're looking for a load of meth, it's fair game.
1 reply →
Seriously?