← Back to context

Comment by JumpCrisscross

20 days ago

> 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.

10 comments

JumpCrisscross

Reply
delusional  20 days ago

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.

  • JumpCrisscross  20 days ago

    > police would ignore your little policy

    Sorry, I meant to make it technically impossible to query the data without producing a public log.

    • apwell23  20 days ago

      thats how it is now though ?

        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,”

      3 replies →

ceejayoz  20 days ago

> I’d make queries public with a short delay…

Won't that likely victimize people who are presumed innocent of crimes until convicted?

  • JumpCrisscross  20 days ago

    > 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.

    • mulmen  20 days ago

      Yes just explain that in the court of public opinion. I’m sure nobody will jump to conclusions.