Hopefully Missouri follows suit.
1 Like
The technology is so awesome, though. I met Turing AI last week, and I could use their API to make my own AI home surveillance at home. I just have to buy the license. I could identify exactly who enters my property, which should be rare. I have a gate. No Flock camera needed, though.
I believe the issue is when narco cartel hitmen moonlighting as deputies use the system to track their targets in real time.
18 months ago I recived a ticket from an ALPR camera. The vehicle photoed was a Ford Explorer Police Interceptor using an old license plate of mine from several years ago.
Can you think of some reasons why someone would drive around in a cop car pretending to be someone else?
The issue isn’t that subtle. It really comes down to the intent of the 4th Amendment:
“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.”
The cameras aren’t technically doing a search or seizure. But case law going back decades has always held that law enforcement (remember I did a 32 year career as a LEO) can’t use ladders, balloons, aircraft, etc. to see over obstacles in order to peer into peoples’ cars, houses and yards unless they have a warrant or one of the exceptions to the requirement are present. In this case they had cameras way up on top of poles angled down to look into car’s interiors and to see license plates. This means that the cameras are not in places where no extra ordinary effort is required to see something that is in “plain sight”. What they are doing is logging each and every car, driver and license plate that passes without any probable cause, reasonable suspicion or even unreasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. That’s the problem. They watch everyone, capture a lot of data that the police don’t need but is there anyway…to be used for any purpose they choose. No warrant, no exigent circumstance, no flight from justice and no crime in progress. This Constitutional objection goes back way before home PCs of any kind. Now we have an early form of AI that can quickly sort and collate all of that data. The invasion of privacy is unjustifiable. In a free society we are expected to sacrifice some of our safety in order to preserve our liberty.
2 Likes
I remember you mentioning this last year.
2 Likes
A follow up to a near miss on a suppressed .40 cal lead sabot fired at me from what I suspect was a supressed air rifle. Missed me by inches while on duty. Put a nice fat hole in a clients travel trailer a few inches above my skull. Thank god for over correction.
1 Like
But the AI attached to the cameras, with Turing AI as one example, definitely CAN identify the names of people and license plates. It reminds me of Person of Interest, except the AI isn’t out making phone calls, obviously.
And yes, Darby, I do agree that true freedom isn’t safe. You create the safety yourself. A police state means perceived safety but no freedom whatsoever, and many choose government because of that. They’re so scared, they want to be controlled.
I’m just fascinated with the technology.
2 Likes
Go to Amazon Prime Video. Watch “Cabaret” which is set in 1929 Germany. Closely watch the biergarten scene, especially the outro as they get into the limo, “Do you still think you can control them?” Especially watch Emcee’s (Joel Grey) silent response. That’s your possible answer to fascinating technology on this level. Germany wished for security and a better tomorrow… and got something else.
Or you can just Google “biergarten scene, Cabaret” and watch the clip. You’ll miss the full context of the film but you will get the point. 
1 Like