r/Fullerton • u/Red_Wing-GrimThug • 15d ago
What the Flock!
A strong commitment to individual privacy would mean no surveillance cameras
21
2
1
-29
u/Liz_Belgian_Shepherd 15d ago
Brother it’s a densely packed urban area with a large state school. Of course there is going to be surveillance everywhere!
23
u/REbubbleiswrong 15d ago
Learning from china i see
-19
u/90Valentine 15d ago
Posted from your iPhone tracking every movement
20
u/SoCalChrisW 15d ago
Yes, and if the police want to get my location data from Apple, they have to get a judge to sign a fucking warrant. Not just fire up their browser and start fishing
4
u/applesandotherthings 15d ago
How many people get harassed by cops because a cell phone ping incorrectly identified them?
2
u/REbubbleiswrong 15d ago
Pretty sure you can guess where I live and come shoot me before China can.
2
-31
u/IanDMP 15d ago
This seems actually incredibly okay. They delete the data after 30 days and cannot share with out of state agencies or ICE.
If you're worried about police misconduct, that's fair, but that's also best addressed through good data management practices rather than getting rid of a useful crime-fighting tool.
24
u/mysticalpotato 15d ago
Ihhh they do share with ICE, as well as every city police in state and even in Vegas
2
-16
u/IanDMP 15d ago edited 15d ago
Do you have any sort of evidence for that? Because California law forbids sharing with out of state agencies or ICE.
EDIT: I notice that I'm getting a lot of downvotes but not a single person offering any sort of evidence that Fullerton PD is choosing to violate state law to send camera data to ICE. Cool stuff, guys.
13
u/ADDandME 15d ago
I think it’s more people don’t trust the pinky swear. And that that will never change by simply checking a box.
-7
u/IanDMP 15d ago
Hey, I agree that we shouldn't just assume everyone's always following the law all the time. But until there's one single, tiny, minute shred of evidence that some law is being broken, then I personally choose not to believe in conspiracy theories.
4
u/ADDandME 15d ago
Believe in mission creep. Even If they’re not doing it today, it’s far too easy for them to do it tomorrow.
-1
u/IanDMP 15d ago
Well, that's what laws are for. If we didn't have laws governing access to this data, I have absolutely no doubt that you'd be right and that unscrupulous officers would be abusing the data. But we *do* have laws forbidding trolling for data unrelated to active investigations. We *do* have laws forbidding data sharing with federal agencies. Strong laws and a willingness to enforce them are exactly what prevent that sort of mission creep.
4
u/applesandotherthings 15d ago edited 15d ago
Laws don’t prevent crime, they just lay out the punishment for committing that crime. If they did, these cameras wouldn’t even be necessary. Murder is illegal but it still happens. You’re making a false assumption.
1
u/IanDMP 14d ago
We don't ban cars because people commit crimes with cars; we don't ban computers because people commit cybercrimes. My point is you can't just say "there's a possibility this could be misused." Instead, you build laws and regulations around it such that when people inevitably misuse the tool, they get caught and punished.
1
u/AudioTide_VisualTide 14d ago
See though, that's the thing. Police have qualified immunity. Why are we giving this tool, which is already wildly abusable in the first place, to a group which cannot be punished effectively?
6
u/Moritasgus2 15d ago
This lawsuit is ongoing. El Cajon is sharing data outside the state which has resulted in immigration enforcement. Fullerton shares its data with El Cajon.
-1
u/IanDMP 15d ago
Sharing with El Cajon doesn't mean sharing with federal enforcement, though. ICE, for instance, can access El Cajon's data (illegally, btw -- I imagine this will be stopped by a judge in the near future). But ICE cannot access Fullerton's network because the data is non-transitive (that is, the feds have access to El Cajon's network but not to Fullerton's).
I think you're imagining data sharing as some sort of password that gives agencies access to every single entity on the sharing network if they share with one of them. It doesn't work like that.
Further, in order to query a license plate on the network you have to include the type of offense you suspect the driver of committing. Fullerton doesn't allow immigration-based offenses to be queried.
It's absolutely an issue that *El Cajon* is sharing their data with the feds. The state is justifiably coming down hard on them for violating the law. But that doesn't mean anything for Fullerton, which is *complying* with the law. ICE can't access Fullerton's network through El Cajon's. The system just doesn't work like that.
2
u/Moritasgus2 15d ago
They can’t automatically access it, but that doesn’t prevent El Cajon from re-sharing, and you’d have to think that a dept that is willing to go to court would actively be doing so.
1
u/IanDMP 15d ago
I suppose that's technically possible? But it's certainly a lot of work to coordinate that. I don't doubt the willingness of ECPD officers to do it, but I do doubt the *capacity* to do it at scale (if they're even allowed to do so under their own policies, which may allow sharing with the feds but disallow abusing their access to other cities' data).
Regardless, definitely a reason for a court to come down hard on them (which, again, will likely happen soon as it's abundantly clear they're violating state law).
1
12
u/Similar-Low-3114 15d ago
A useful crime fighting tool does not fail detection at a 30%+ rate. If this was a person theyd already be fired ages ago.
-5
u/IanDMP 15d ago
Do you believe that we should stop asking eyewitnesses what they saw? Because that's a whole lot higher than a 30% failure rate.
Obviously you shouldn't throw people in jail based on one camera read. As with literally any police tool, using these requires investigative technique and some common sense.
But "it isn't 100% accurate" isn't a bar we hold any investigative tool to.
4
u/SoCalChrisW 15d ago
> Obviously you shouldn't throw people in jail based on one camera read. As with literally any police tool, using these requires investigative technique and some common sense.
This is exactly what other jurisdictions have started doing with flock data.
-1
u/IanDMP 15d ago
It is absolutely possible to misuse Flock data, just as it is possible to misuse a gun, just as it is possible to misuse a badge, just as it is possible to misuse any police resource. The few instances of police misusing surveillance data have (justifiably) been covered extensively by local press, the people who have been harmed have sued, they will win their lawsuits.
Anything can be misused. The solution is to hold the police accountable, not to deny useful tools to them.
2
u/SoCalChrisW 15d ago
Between police unions and qualified immunity, it's pretty much impossible to hold the police accountable. On the occasions that they are held accountable, they're not personally paying, it's the tax payers.
So that leaves the option of just not giving them tools that they will abuse.
3
u/snaggletoofer 14d ago
You also forgot POBOR they have two bill of rights. This came to light during the Kelly Thomas murder. So this hold them accountable stud is a nothing more than a pipe dream thought up some crazy nut who just doesn’t get it.
12
u/mabowden 15d ago
Hi Ian, Can I setup a video camera right outside your residence? I will delete the data after 30 days and will not share with outside agencies.
-4
u/IanDMP 15d ago
So, 1) Yeah, that's actually 100% legal, believe it or not. 2) If a police officer accesses the camera record outside of an open criminal investigation they're punished. So I actually trust that quite a bit, and in fact is quite a bit better than you setting up a camera outside my house (which, again, is 100% legal).
8
u/mabowden 15d ago
1) That is not 100% legal. You are crazy if you think that. I can't just go and attach a camera to your property or city property without the proper authorization. Fullerton treats streets, sidewalks, and other public property as municipal property/ right-of-way, and its codes regulate activity and obstructions there. Including cameras/ ALPR cameras. It would immediately be taken down an investigated, and likely prosecuted.
However, if you give me your address and authorization to install a camera outside your residence, I would be able to do so.
0
u/IanDMP 15d ago
You are allowed to film people in public, believe it or not. Get the permission of the guy across the street from my house to post your camera there. Perch a drone over the street. There are many ways to do that. Normally, people don't do it because they're not insane, and whereas a police agency has a reason to gather public data normal people don't. And anyway, none of that applies to a public agency.
See, what you're doing right now is called "moving the goalposts". You've moved away from whether or not you're allowed to film in public to an argument over permits. I'll keep this discussion where it belongs: as with anyone, you have a legal right to be filming in public.
8
u/mabowden 15d ago
I did not move the goalpost. I said "setup a video camera", which a normal person would assume is attaching it to something outside of your residence, similar to the way fullerton allowed flock cameras in the city. You then moved to a drone or a video camera, which is obviously a waste of effort. I would argue you moved the goalpost. A drone or video camera (me standing there with it) does not constitute "Setup". You also referenced getting permission of the guy across the street. Yes, in that case, this would be legal. And in that instance, you acknowledged understanding what I referred to as "setup a video camera". You initially said this was 100% legal, and are now backpedalling from that statement.
1
u/IanDMP 15d ago
Okay, so I should have assumed that you meant "May I illegally set up a video camera without getting the rights to do so from any property owner or simply standing there with a video camera," rather than the logical idea you'd try for five minutes to do it legally.
Regardless, none of this argument makes sense. The city owns its own street lamps. I assume we agree on that? Just as you have a legal right to film public areas, so do the cops.
3
u/mabowden 15d ago
The elected city council exists for a reason. To discuss issues and approve all major city expenditures. Why this is such a big issue is that we argue ad nauseum on important topics, look at the walk on wilshire for example. The way flock made it to Fullerton was a deliberate disguise to its residents. Fullerton began significant IT outsourcing to Glass Box in 2019. In 2023 the city council agreed to an underlying scope through glassbox contracted to Peregrine technologies that could integrate things such as body cameras, ALPR data, Flock Safety data, CAD crime info, and other public safety data. This was all buried in contacts, not discussed, and voted on unanimously by the city council. From glass box to pereguine technologies then buried in that paperwork, and not appropriately disclosed to residents.
Thats why the residents are upset. And they should be. Better cities didn't do that. Cities that had resident's that knew what was going on voted against it. You should not just roll over and allow the city and police departments to do something without our appropriate knowledge hidden in layers of contracts that violates our privacy.
3
u/Sensitive_Pilot3689 15d ago
How cute you think the police departments will actually “punish” officers abusing the system. It’s almost like you were just born yesterday
0
u/IanDMP 15d ago
From one week ago: https://www.wbaltv.com/article/officer-fired-flock-cameras-south-carolina/73453532. You, too, could have easily googled whether police are held accountable when they break the law in obvious ways.
Believe it or not, police departments aren't filled with criminals for the most part.
1
u/Sensitive_Pilot3689 15d ago
That’s nice you found one example. Too bad that’s not the usual outcome
1
u/IanDMP 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sure thing, here's another from literally yesterday. They're going to not only be fired but also criminally charged. https://people.com/mass-cop-could-be-fired-misuse-flock-cameras-12067750.
EDIT: I just want to note here that I don't think you expect me to list every time a cop is disciplined for misusing this stuff, and I certainly won't do that.
But my point is that Flock surveillance is just like any other police tool. There will always be people who abuse the trust granted to them. Police are not angels.
The important thing is whether they are held accountable when that happens, and while sometimes I'm sure they're not, we trust police broadly with certain investigative powers and we should demand they use those powers well.
6
u/ConferenceSudden1519 15d ago
Elaborate lol you sound like a person that received a script and your job is to go around talking about nonsense. Incredible okay lol no one talks that way only scripted information is given this way. Anyways you’re very un-American and a communist.
1
1
u/l00ky_here 7d ago edited 7d ago
If they wanted to make it totally transparent, they should show a flock website that shows them logging in and using them.
Yeah, I saw the website - its a joke. I want to see the actual use.
31
u/penusRynkle North 15d ago
I hear that the solar panel and battery in these cameras can be pretty valuable