[lokar]

Have an independent non-profit with strong oversight manage the data. Grant access with a warrant.

The police should show that a crime has likely been committed, and get access to just the data that probably has evidence.

[krupan]

You still have people with very tempting access to a whole lot of data. I don't see how this is different from the current situation other than it's just different (corruptible) people with access.

[lokar]

I think motivations matter. Putting a for-profit company hired by the police, and the police in charge is just the worst.

There are many other contexts where we trust properly supervised people who lack an immediate and obvious incentive to abuse the system. Combined with good overall software design, auditing and transparency almost all of the harms could be mitigated. And the tech does have some pretty major benefits.

[tptacek]

Every piece of technology deployed by the police is provided by a for-profit company.

[lokar]

I’m against flock the company. I’m in favor of a narrower form of plate recorders.

[tptacek]

How do you do a warrant for a device that alerts when a car on a hotlist transits an intersection?

[lokar]

Record the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime.

[tptacek]

The whole pitch for the cameras is alerting! The point is to interdict the cars right after they pass the camera.

[lokar]

That may be what police like, but in my town it’s sold to residents on solving crimes.

[irishcoffee]

A stolen car is a crime though.

[lokar]

Sure. So file a request with a judge including evidence that the car has been stolen, and a reasonable time window and location.