Comment by jkestner
3 hours ago
Clearly, the stories in the press have hurt them, especially the police abuse. Requiring case codes is a good step, and proactively catching signs of abuse is a big change from "we're just an unopinionated tool; you should talk to your police department". They're still passing the buck on educating users on the limitations of their tool. I remain skeptical of any of their claims around data ownership.
Reading these actions, you can pick apart how to circumvent them, and the security audit is still pending — let's see how damning of a report they'll allow to be released.
I dont know why we're not looking at the obvious answer here. Encrypt the data behind warrants and require narrow parameters for the warrants. It will require state-by-state implementation + legal changes sure but it's the safest, simplest solution.
P.S: Anyone know how London has solved this problem?
The last thing I'd want replicated in the US is UK governance.
The last thing I'd wanna replicate is any kind of blanket statement like that.
> More than one-third of our customers have voluntarily adopted Audit Assistance.
Looks like they don't actually give a shit. These safeguards should be the required bare minimum.