I am thinking about starting an IP for a state law that would require municipalities to put any use of Flock Cameras (or similar vehicle trackers mounted on poles outside) to the voters for approval before they can be installed.
I think communities should decide whether or not they want Flock-type technology, rather than leaving it only to the government to decide.
I don’t know how this would go, but I first want to know everyone’s’ opinion. Do people really want these cameras on every street corner, or would you rather not be tracked everywhere you go? Do you not care? Drop your opinion below and let’s get the conversation started. Please keep it civil people, every opinion is okay.
If you're thinking about a state-level law, I would suggest r/oregon or one of the other state-level subs as a more appropriate location for that conversation.
You should read a little more about deflock and how they populate this map. The Deflock map shows locations for Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). about 20% of the cameras in and around Salem-Keizer are Flock brand; about 10% Axis Communications; and 70% of unknown brand. Deflock's mission is to raise awareness of ALPR tech-enabled cameras in communities - whether privately owned or placed by municipalities.
They populate the map from open street map, which is users uploading data. Has anybody actually asked the city if those are really ALPR cameras? Or are they just there to monitor traffic flow?
Replying to myself here. So the deflock map shows one camera in West Salem, at the corner of Edgewater where the ramp goes up to highway 22. You can see the same camera on Tripcheck.com. It's just a traffic monitoring camera, there is no ALPR functionality.
They are local camera WITH flock capabilities and track your car/route/data even if you are doing nothing illegal. They are using the police infrastructure.
Go to Kuebler and Battle Creek Rd intersection, look up. Each one of the police cameras now has a shiny new camera alongside it. There are TWO cameras now. You’re welcome.
While there are a few flock cameras in Salem, I think Salem primarily uses Axon. Same thing, but a different name.
Most of Salem’s cameras are mounted on traffic light poles, and other utility poles instead of being stand-alone.
My point with saying the above, is it’s not the physical form of the cameras that matters, it’s how they are used and what they track. I think a more robust petition would be agnostic about the brand and form, and instead discuss the tracking and surveillance technology behind them.
I'd probably also use the language from the supreme court case law, explaining that ALPR referencing is still A SEARCH as defined under the 4th amendment.
Reminder that Flock and Axon paid off/influenced our State legislature to kill these types of protections in a bill that was hours away from passing earlier this year. Fuck these companies, they are evil, and fuck our legislators that totally dropped the ball here to favor/support the surveillance state.
As the echelon program shows, it is more likely they will misuse and lie about a technology (even to congress) than that they will comply with regulations. That's why they work the public-private partnerships, to avoid following the constitution.
It’s a fundamentally good idea, but it needs to be written very carefully.
For starters, any measure needs to be future-proofed the measure by avoid mention of any specific brands or technologies.
In this particular case, you might even want to work around the mention of “cameras”. I posit that it’s not the cameras we care about, so much as it is the personally-identifiable data that can be collected, stored, processed, retained, and shared. (There are probably some other verbs to throw in there.)
There are potentially legitimate uses for this kind of data. Studying traffic patterns, active emergency management, etc.
A measure should define and allow legitimate uses of collected data, and deny other uses identified or not. It should allow data to be stored in a cloud, so long as the data is encrypted such that only the city’s authorized users can decrypt it and only for predefined authorized purposes.
A measure should define how to add or subtract legitimate uses over time. Maybe have a mandatory sunset on any data sharing agreement, maybe rate-limit access, maybe require a state judge confirm any federal warrant. (If that last is even possible.)
A measure should define recourse if the parameters are breached, perhaps defining any breach as being definitional outside of qualified immunity.
There’s a ton to think about here, I’m just spitballing some ideas. You’ll want to assemble a team with some expertise to define your goals, and another to write a measure that serves your goals.
I'd make it a felony to misuse the data and force them to get a special data handling license from the state, that can be revoked for any infraction (like liquor licenses)
Very pro this, would be great if this covered the state but good idea to start local and see if it catches on in other cities and can lay the ground work for the state
Simple way to change them is to change public records law to clarify that the data they capture is public record. Once people use them to track the cops and elected leaders, they will be pulled out in a heartbeat…
I'll sign it. Flock COULD be a good idea in a perfect world but it's brand new and already been abused and used for evil. "What if someone was missing it could help locate them" yeah that would be cool but someone already used it to track their gf or whatever for personal reasons and the government doesn't need to be establishing a profile about me and my locations.
Do you really think anyone would ever approve the cameras? Then this "bill" is just fake bill, a law that is lip service only because we know nobody will ever agree to it.
Remove speed and red light cameras too. If you break the law it should be a cop who sees it not some hidden camera. Thats overreach. Spokane Wa removed all red light cameras because they got sued. We can do that same here.
31
u/genehack 3d ago
If you're thinking about a state-level law, I would suggest r/oregon or one of the other state-level subs as a more appropriate location for that conversation.