Comment by delusional
20 days ago
It's practically impossible to build a system that "can't be abused". If you set the bar there, then you can block any policy forever by simply enumerating increasingly unlikely ways for it to be abused. It's like a child's version of politics.
I could go into my car right now and plow through a bunch of people. I'm still allowed to own a car. We've made the actual harmful act illegal, not the thing that theoretically made it possible.
At the same time, we do not allow people to have nuclear bombs.
As everything in life, it's a trade-off, but a good trade-off can only be found if people are fully aware of the consequences. It seems to me, people regularly underestimate the negative consequences of data collection (or realize that these consequences will not affect them, but others).
> It's practically impossible to build a system that "can't be abused"
For ALPRs? I’d make queries public with a short delay, including with a unique identifier for the cop initiating the query. Data automatically deleted within an interval.
And then you feel comfortable guaranteeing that it could never be abused?
The issue is being brought up by the state auditor. This article is literally what would happen anyway if your pet policy was enacted. The police would ignore your little policy, and the standard would have to write an article about the abuse. Hopefully that article would drive public opinion enough for change to happen.
This is the system working.
> police would ignore your little policy
Sorry, I meant to make it technically impossible to query the data without producing a public log.
4 replies →
> I’d make queries public with a short delay…
Won't that likely victimize people who are presumed innocent of crimes until convicted?
> Won't that likely victimize people who are presumed innocent of crimes until convicted?
Don’t see why. My plate could be scanned because I’m a criminal, or because I’m a witness or a victim.
2 replies →