Indianapolis Flock security camera opinions

[Denny347]

Then I'll ask: if this is all about tracking and capturing criminals, how does capturing a license plate/rear-end picture provide a relevant data point if there is no idea who was driving when it was captured?

We have a wanted suspect connected to a vehicle, we enter that plate, seeing if it hits on a certain side of town. Even with all the FLOCK cameras Indy has, they can only narrow the track to a certain intersection where the camera is mounted. There might not be another camera for MILES, thus that vehicle could be anywhere between those cameras, in an urban setting. FLOCK doesn't give us RS for a stop or PC for an arrest. We still have to come up with that on our own. It just gives us an idea where to look for it.

"We know this vehicle has been in the area when crimes were committed. So any people in this vehicle must have committed, or be about to commit a crime."

We need human witnesses to give us a suspect vehicle description and then we can look for a vehicle in that area that matches.

Is that the way of it?
Or is there useful information about when/where a particular vehicle has been that's providing a boost to investigations?

It can be. But we have to already have an idea of a suspect vehicle description. These are not security cameras, these have a very narrow field of view only to capture the rear of vehicles as they drive past. Security cameras are much more valuable in finding suspect vehicle descriptions.

Is it so unbelievable that someone else might find similar information useful?

It's hard to image someone would pay money for anonymous vehicle pictures. You couldn't use it for advertising as you have no idea WHO is connected to those vehicles. It's only valuable to us as we generate suspect information THEN look for that vehicle in FLOCK or have FLOCK alert us but we don't sift through thousands of vehicles looking for something out of the ordinary.

 

[xwing]

These are terribly intrusive. With compute costs going down and algorithms / AI improving, the data they collect will continue to get more valuable over time. (And of course it will be used for more and more infringing purposes both by the government and private businesses over time.) The time to push back was yesterday, but today is still better than tomorrow. As with any infringement, they will continue to nibble our rights away one bit at a time.

 

[bwframe]

Countermeasures???

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Countermeasures???

Like what, covering your license plate? Not legal I don't believe. Seems like the toll bridge cameras heading into Louisville are more intrusive than FLOCK.

 

[Destro]

These are terribly intrusive. With compute costs going down and algorithms / AI improving, the data they collect will continue to get more valuable over time. (And of course it will be used for more and more infringing purposes both by the government and private businesses over time.) The time to push back was yesterday, but today is still better than tomorrow. As with any infringement, they will continue to nibble our rights away one bit at a time.

Infringement how? Please be specific. I understand not liking them, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy extended to the exterior of a vehicle traveling public roads.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Infringement how? Please be specific. I understand not liking them, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy extended to the exterior of a vehicle traveling public roads.

 

[xwing]

Infringement how? Please be specific. I understand not liking them, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy extended to the exterior of a vehicle traveling public roads.

Against private property rights, for one. Putting one of those ugly and obnoxious things in front of people's houses without their permission. It's ridiculous how the government "owns" part of your yard and can put things you find morally reprehensive in it.

 

[Denny347]

Against private property rights, for one. Putting one of those ugly and obnoxious things in front of people's houses without their permission. It's ridiculous how the government "owns" part of your yard and can put things you find morally reprehensive in it.

I can only speak for us urban dwellers but ours are all along public streets/interstates.

 

[Shadow01]

Since Flock is not considered an agent of the government and they are just collecting random picture information, can we legally obscure plates at flock cameras Only?

 

[JettaKnight]

It's hard to image someone would pay money for anonymous vehicle pictures.

It's hard to imagine someone would pay money for pictures of someone's feet, but...

 

[JettaKnight]

Against private property rights, for one. Putting one of those ugly and obnoxious things in front of people's houses without their permission. It's ridiculous how the government "owns" part of your yard and can put things you find morally reprehensive in it.

Have you seen the 5G antennas?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Infringement how? Please be specific. I understand not liking them, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy extended to the exterior of a vehicle traveling public roads.

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy extending to the exterior of your home if it's visible from a public road? If you say no, you may want to look up US v Kyllo.

You may also want to read the opinion in US v Jones. Which had to do with a GPS tracker, but part of the opinion I find interesting. That being this.

"Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[t]raditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-week period “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 12, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompany- ing trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question."

 

[Creedmoor]

Countermeasures???

A battery sawzsall.

 

[Creedmoor]

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy extending to the exterior of your home if it's visible from a public road? If you say no, you may want to look up US v Kyllo.

You may also want to read the opinion in US v Jones. Which had to do with a GPS tracker, but part of the opinion I find interesting. That being this.

"Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[t]raditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-week period “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 12, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompany- ing trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question."

So using a thermal camera to see in and around one home is the same as what one can see from the neighbors or from public property?
We mere humans dont have the ability to see through walls and whats behind a solid fence.

And you are saying using a hidden GPS to track all of ones movements are the same as a pic captured when one drives by a camera.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So using a thermal camera to see in and around one home is the same as what one can see from the neighbors or from public property?
We mere humans dont have the ability to see through walls and whats behind a solid fence.

And you are saying using a hidden GPS to track all of ones movements are the same as a pic captured when one drives by a camera.

The thermal imager didn't see inside the house, it simply detected hot spots on the exterior.

And I didn't say that, I simply quoted a SCOTUS opinion. If you noticed it stated that achieving the same results as traditional surveillance using electronic means, without trespass may be a Constitutional violation. Would cameras that track your vehicle's location have the same results as traditional surveillance?

Here's a question for you, talking on a payphone you wouldn't have an expectation of privacy from being overheard from someone standing outside it, correct? Would it be a Constitutional violation for the govt. to plant a bug on the outside of said payphone booth?

 

[Denny347]

It's hard to imagine someone would pay money for pictures of someone's feet, but...

I guess they could wank it to pics of vehicles....

 

[Denny347]

Since Flock is not considered an agent of the government and they are just collecting random picture information, can we legally obscure plates at flock cameras Only?

Yup, so as long as it's still visible to the naked eye. Just don't pass a toll with it, that's not legal.

 

[Denny347]

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy extending to the exterior of your home if it's visible from a public road? If you say no, you may want to look up US v Kyllo.

Yes, but we are talking about taking pictures of the same thing as you see with your naked eye. Using special equipment CAN be a violation.

You may also want to read the opinion in US v Jones. Which had to do with a GPS tracker, but part of the opinion I find interesting. That being this.

"Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[t]raditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-week period “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 12, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompany- ing trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question."

Yeah, we get search warrants to apply GPS on suspect vehicles. Not the same.

 

[Denny347]

And I didn't say that, I simply quoted a SCOTUS opinion. If you noticed it stated that achieving the same results as traditional surveillance using electronic means, without trespass may be a Constitutional violation. Would cameras that track your vehicle's location have the same results as traditional surveillance?

As always, we have to weigh the level of governmental intrusion. GPS will reveal where you live, work, play, visit, for how long, how fast your drive, literally every second of your traveling day. FLOCK will alert us if a plate entered as stolen passes through an intersection. We may only ever get a single hit, can you see the difference in the level of intrusion?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, but we are talking about taking pictures of the same thing as you see with your naked eye. Using special equipment CAN be a violation.

Yeah, we get search warrants to apply GPS on suspect vehicles. Not the same.

Yes, I understand that you get a warrant for GPS. The part I find interesting is that the opinion stated that even without trespass may be a Constitutional violation.

Can you hear someone talking on a payphone with your naked ear? Why would attaching a bug on the outside of the booth be a violation of the 4th Am?

As always, we have to weigh the level of governmental intrusion. GPS will reveal where you live, work, play, visit, for how long, how fast your drive, literally every second of your traveling day. FLOCK will alert us if a plate entered as stolen passes through an intersection. We may only ever get a single hit, can you see the difference in the level of intrusion?

Yep I can see the difference, what about if there were more cameras and you received many more hits? Could that approach GPS level tracking?