zlacker

No I'm not. I actually do real political work on this issue, ran the commission process that restricted our cameras and created the only restrictive ALPR police General Orders in Chicagoland, and got us to pass an ACLU CCOPS ordinance --- the first municipality in Illinois to have one.

Whatever else I am, I'm not "muddying the waters". I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. You're going to find my bona fides here are pretty strong.

>>tptace+(OP)
You could comment about why the things listed in the article aren't a red line.

>>sapphi+N2
I've already done that.

>>tptace+(OP)
> I actually do real political work on this issue

And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head.

> I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience.

All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties.

You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications.

What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.

>>tptace+(OP)
The funny thing is you did the exact same thing in this comment as the last one! No arguments to be seen, just "I did all this stuff." Maybe we should call this sunken cost rather than muddying the waters?

>>free_b+B3
Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith.

>>tptace+33
Please quote where. I don't see it. I will go further and assert no you didn't.

>>tptace+(OP)
> I actually do real political work

I’m not even sure why but this sentiment rubs me the wrong way.

Perhaps it’s that what’s resonated most to me about democracy is the premise that it is all “for the people, of the people, by the people.”

There’s something exclusive about that statement.

>>thakop+w6
Yes. The people are supposed to do work. Believe me: ordinary people who strongly disagree with a lot of what's being said on this thread are doing the work, showing up and complaining about "defund the police" people being behind any limitations on ALPRs at all. I had to argue with them! You are responsible for engaging on this, because, contrary to the claim at the top of the thread, this simply is not a "red line".

>>tptace+(OP)
I'm an ex-employee of Flock who left when I learned just how empty their words about ethics and morality of increased surveillance really were.

They will happily look the other way when agencies share data that Flock knows they're not meant to be sharing.

They will happily "massage" data when needed to shore up a case (particularly with their gunshot detection).

Their transparency report probably lists only about 2/3 (at most) of the agencies that are actually using the system.

I asked lots of questions about ethics and morality in the recruitment process, got in, and rapidly learned that it was openly mask-off, surveillance state, Minority Report-esque mission.

>>tptace+L4
It was a statement that you're muddying the waters without implying whether bad faith or just a weak argument. And it was followed by the reasoning: that on a topic where the arguments against pervasive surveillance can be considered obvious, you aren't even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this in your dissenting opinion. Just an appeal to authority, "I am super experienced and say it's fine".

After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way.

If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.

>>FireBe+o9
Yikes. I can’t say it surprises me but my god that’s terrifying

>>tptace+L4
>Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith.

Perhaps others have asked that question. I have not. Rather, I'm asking a different question:

Why should we believe that Flock is operating in good faith?

Especially given the anti-democratic (small 'd') and likely illegal stuff they pulled in Evanston[0].

That's not a rhetorical question.

[0] >>45382434

>>tptace+W6
The work of democracy does not require action.

If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll assume you agree.

>>thakop+Pp
Saying things like this is why you're losing.

>>nobody+zl
I think my response to this would be to say that other ALPR operators are just as susceptible to extrajudicial pressure as Flock, and it would be foolish indeed to salve yourself by saying your ALPRs are OK because they're operated by Motorola instead of Flock.

I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me. I have the impression I might be the one person on this thread who has actually done any policy with with ALPRs.

>>tptace+xr
I’m on your side with regards to the issue of flock.

So, we’re losing.

>>FireBe+o9
To me the most horrifying one here is “massaging” the data to help shore up a legal case.

Would whistleblower protections shield you? Or have you taken this to any reputable journalists?

>>thakop+w6
That's the "magic" of democracy. It makes states stable because the government is theoretically representative which adds a ton of friction to the usual "we'll just throw the kind and his court off a cliff because they don't represent us and install some lords who do" workflow.

>>tptace+3s
That's all as may be.

And discussions of ALPRs and the issues around them are absolutely important.

My point was that the City of Evanston required their contractor (Flock) to remove their equipment from city infrastructure. Flock did so and then promptly reinstalled that equipment on city-owned infrastructure, flouting the will of the legitimate civil authority -- because they wanted to get paid by another government agency, against the express orders of said civil authority.

I don't know where you come from, but that sort of behavior just reeks of bad faith to me.

Feel free to disagree. And if you do, given your significant policy experience why Flock acted in good faith in Evanston. I'd be quite interested in your thoughts.

>I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me.

Huh? a rhetorical question[0] is (often) one that isn't actually trying to elicit information. My question, on the other hand, was specifically attempting to ascertain whether or not you think Flock is acting in good faith given their history.

So no, I wasn't trying to "gotcha" you (as in "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of thing), I genuinely wanted your take. But that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, so I'll back off. Have a good day.

I hope it's worth it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

>>thakop+w6
Because “political work” is an oxymoron

>>senord+dx
This is exactly what has happened with the same junk science tech that “Shotspotter” uses. There are recorded incidents of police leaning on support staff to alter the location of a potential detection. And their junk science software is closed source. So when they are involved in a case, the defense has subpoena their source code and voila! Shotspotter is dropped from the prosecution’s exhibit list. You see Shotspotter can’t afford to have their code scrutinized. Have you figured out why? (Junk science)