This is the part that upsets me. They really could help solve crimes without sacrificing privacy.
replyHow? Whatever the system is now is clearly not preserving privacy
replyHave an independent non-profit with strong oversight manage the data. Grant access with a warrant.
replyThe police should show that a crime has likely been committed, and get access to just the data that probably has evidence.
You still have people with very tempting access to a whole lot of data. I don't see how this is different from the current situation other than it's just different (corruptible) people with access.
replyI think motivations matter. Putting a for-profit company hired by the police, and the police in charge is just the worst.
replyThere are many other contexts where we trust properly supervised people who lack an immediate and obvious incentive to abuse the system. Combined with good overall software design, auditing and transparency almost all of the harms could be mitigated. And the tech does have some pretty major benefits.
How do you do a warrant for a device that alerts when a car on a hotlist transits an intersection?
replyRecord the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime.
replyThe whole pitch for the cameras is alerting! The point is to interdict the cars right after they pass the camera.
replyThat may be what police like, but in my town it’s sold to residents on solving crimes.
replyA stolen car is a crime though.
replySure. So file a request with a judge including evidence that the car has been stolen, and a reasonable time window and location.
reply