← Back to context

Comment by FarmerPotato

4 hours ago

But Flock DOES follow you around, in the sense that you can't really escape being observed by a series of ALPRs on a highway network.

Read some cases of who's suffering now. Cops (or ICE) can choose a passing vehicle to run a ALPR search on, finding out what states it just passed through. When they consider it "suspicious", said driver gets stopped, searched, and even detained.

Look at how ALPR is being used and whose rights are being violated as a result. Hint: it's not criminals.

4 comments

FarmerPotato

Reply
try_the_bass  2 hours ago

If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.

I think the suffering/abuse is able to be reasonably controlled through increased/better oversight, more publicly available information, and more strict regulations around the use of the data produced by these devices.

I also think they're able to impart a whole lot of good on their communities. If they contribute to an increase in the number of arrests and convictions for crimes, that might end up being a net good.

I think starting from the assumption that they are net bad, and then telling me I should only look at the negatives is an uncompelling argument.

I need not look further than the testimony of people who used to commit crimes in areas with increased surveillance (i.e., San Francisco), and I see a compelling argument for their upsides. Now I have to weigh the positives and negatives against each other, and it stops being the clear-cut argument you're disingenuously presenting it as.

  • rationalist  1 hour ago

    > If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.

    If you're only reading the stories of the homosexual people in Germany in the 1940s, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.