Yeah but they changed it to a dropdown now so others won't be able to follow in his footsteps.

[dead]

[flagged]

It's public. It's in the dataset that was released containing "LMAO".

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks.

My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k".

These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).

This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.

I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.

What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces

Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals

The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable

I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.

Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated.

In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.

-----------

Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.

Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?

Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.

We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.

We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom.

Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?

Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.

[dead]

The government would never do that! /s

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/dea-planned-moni...

https://www.libertynation.com/flock-cameras-vs-gun-shops-the...

OTOH, are you in an official role with extended powers because you represent the State? A role where you can routinely infringe on the civil and human rights of the people around you?

Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?

I'm guessing that often you find yourself surrounded by people and issues that just don't make sense to you.

We're supposed to hold police officers to a much higher standard. Whether I would or not is irrelevant.

Exactly. So this shouldn't be possible.

I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.

I would assume, if I'm reviewing the cameras for a valid reason, that it may end up in court. If it ends up in court, I'd want my logs to show I atleast did the bare minimum, yes.

The point is not that police are bad and we aren't. You're right that everyone can be tempted to terrible action by access and permission to terrible things.

The very clear point here is that cops are in practice misusing this system without a meaningful safeguard in place to ensure searches are legal. Which is especially worrisome in this country given that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Like, the constitution isn't unclear on this at all.

No because I'm not a cunt.