would be super cool to at least get a neighborhood wide alert if someone who’s done done shit has rentered our neighborhood
So you could do what?
Comment on Police Unmask Millions of Surveillance Targets Because of Flock Redaction Error
rumba@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
I’ve love to have private alpr’s in my neighborhood. We’ve had mailbox thefts and people driving around breaking into cars, even had car stolen. These guys are changing their plates regularly, but it would be super cool to at least get a neighborhood wide alert if someone who’s done done shit has rentered our neighborhood. I’m just not keen on giving that data to 3rd parties lock stock and barrel
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
jasoman@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Violence i am guessing.
MangoCats@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
Our (prior) neighborhood had 3 miles of roads with one entrance, a 911 call could get a sheriff’s car response to block the entrance with a description of the vehicle (plate number, even).
Our current neighborhood, only 1/4 mile of road, so yeah, you’d have to shoot 'em.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So you want to monitor people so you can harm them, even though harm is not the appropriate punishment for their crime?
MangoCats@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
Never said I would shoot them, just pointing out the reality of modern life that the only possible response is to go interact with unknown belligerent members of the public in person, who may themselves be carrying firearms…
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Jesus fuck that escalated quickly!
MangoCats@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
It’s MAD on the local scale…
amju_wolf@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Thw issue youll run into is effectiveness at that small scale, sonyoull be tempted to share data with other systems like that, and eventually you’ll end up creating a different flock.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The idea and motive and intention is great. The outcome is always evil.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Thw issue youll run into is effectiveness at that small scale, sonyoull be tempted to share data with other systems like that, and eventually you’ll end up creating a different flock.
I wonder if a segregated system design could address this. Similar in-system segregation like a TPM for the actual detection/matching part of the system separated from the command and control part.
As in, the camera and OCR operations would be in their own embedded system which could never receive code updates from the outside. Perhaps this is etched into the silicon SoC itself. Also on silicon would be a small NVRAM that could only hold requested license plate numbers (or a hash of them perhaps). This NVRAM would be WRITE ONLY. So it would never be able to be queried from outside the SOC. The raw camera feed would be wired to the SoC. The only input would be from an outside command and control system (still local to our SoC) that and administrator could send in new license plates numbers to search against. The output of the SoC would “Match found against License Plate X”. Even the time stamp would have to be applied by the outside command and control system.
This would have some natural barriers against dragnet surveillance abuse.
- It would never be possible to dump the license plates being searched for from the cameras themselves even by abusive admins. The only admin option would be to overwrite the list of what the camera is trying to match against.
- The NVRAM that contains the match list could be intentionally sized small to perhaps a few hundreds plate numbers so that an abusive admin couldn’t simply generate every possible license plate combination effectively turning this back into a blanket surveillance tool. The NVRAM limit could be implemented as an on-die fuse link so that upon deployment the size could be made as small as needed for the use case.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s going to be unpopular to say around here, but the truth is that technology is largely amoral.
bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
While the tech may be amoral, its still implemented and utilized by pricks whose goal is control.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yup, and its important to communicate that or we risk losing our voice in the general public and look like Luddites
Feyd@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Just FYI, using the term luddite derogatorily may not be as cool as you think it is. They were essentially an instance of organized labor flexing their power and not really “against technological advancement” like the term gets bandied about.
MangoCats@feddit.it 2 weeks ago
The real conundrum is: once you have unique identifiers on vehicles - which pretty much all countries with cars have - where’s the line? Do you require people to visually read the plates and write them down on paper? Who is allowed to keep databases of the information? How do you prevent people from keeping their own private databases? How do you prevent someone from creating a dash-cam app that does GPS/time coded databasing of all plate numbers it observes while driving? If a neighborhood HOA wants to network all their dash (and fixed location) apr-cam information into a central database, when does it become too much to allow? And how do you possibly enforce overstepping of the limits?
Scenario: A HOA has fixed cam automatic plate reader information and video evidence that proves XM3 5D9 was out smashin’ mailboxes on Friday night. The HOA president is cruising downtown Saturday morning and finds XM3 5D9 parked on the street, using his dash mounted apr software, calls the cops (in a vain attempt) to have them come arrest the mailbox smashers who were recorded in close-up 4K high def night vision doing the deed from the window of their car. This feels close to the over-stepping limit, but what if there were no cameras or software involved and the same XM3 5D9 plate ID was used by the same people to make the same accusation of the same mailbox smashers, this time based on telephoto chemical film pictures?
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
This also ignores the fact that the person in the car the second time XM3 5D9 was spotted is not necessarily the same person in the car the first. So one could easily false accuse.
Feyd@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
The problem with surveillance tech is that even if it was initially implemented with the best intentions by good people that aren’t seeking to abuse it, it can change hands.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That is true
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Enabling a surveillance state is not amoral.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Your phrasing seems to imply I said it was, but I never said that.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
The technology enables the surveillance state. Therefore the technology is not amoral.
JollyG@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If you are in a discussion about the development and deployment of technology to facilitate a surveillance state, then saying “technology is neutral” is the least interesting thing you could possibly say on the subject.
In a completely abstract, disconnected-from-society-and-current-events sense it is correct to say technology is amoral. But we live in a world where surveillance technology is developed to make it easier for corporations and the state to invade the privacy of individuals. We live in a world where legal rights are being eroded by the use of this technology. We live in a world where this technology is profitable because it helps organizations violate individual rights. If you live in the US, as I do, then you live in a world where federal law enforcement agencies have become completely contemptuous of the law and are literally abducting innocent people off the street. They use the technology under discussion here to help them do that.
That a piece of tech might potentially be used for a not-immoral purpose is completely irrelevant to how it is actually being used in the real world.