Chief Adam Ferguson addressed concerns about automated license plate reading system, as a packed house questioned whether WLPD really understood the stakes with the AI data being collected.
Thanks, Dave. Nice article with some great supplements. I look forward to reading those.
It was a good meeting. I'm glad that everyone came out.
The first order of business is transparency. One initial action item is for the WLPD to share their contract with Flock (and any other similar vendors) so the public can review what type of agreement the City is entering into on behalf of the Public.
Another one would be to release the current policies that govern all of the technology systems that are in place and utilized by WLPD. I am sure there are systems we are unaware of.
From there, we can study and ask more questions, resulting in legislative action from the City Council. They were there, as you reported, so they know that ask is coming.
---
Quick question: It wasn't clear to me in the text, but I assume this was Mayor Easter's quote?
“I think our police have deployed the technology properly, and I trust the West Lafayette Police Department with the work they do and the care they take. … I think Chief Ferguson is committed to following up with questions tonight and being transparent.”
To that I would say, "Sure. But let's verify that trust."
I don't think you get to complain about Flock cameras if you have a Ring doorbell or a Facebook account.
Cops must be dismayed about this uproar, having been thoroughly trained that any bystander can record them doing their jobs, in personally identifiable detail, because things happening in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cops that think the public supports them tend to be good cops, cops that think they are on their own are more likely to resort to force.
That said, if we can leverage outrage to get lasting privacy protections, in the form of a constitutional amendment that even the Roberts court respects, I'll bring the hacksaw and spray paint myself.
Agree with you re: Ring cameras, but not re social media accounts. In the latter people choose to broadcast their information, but in the former people are recorded without their consent. I think the "recorded" part is the really the important distinguishing word there. Yes, you don't expect privacy when you're out walking in public. But if a person were following you around with a camera and said "Hey, you have no expectation of privacy" I doubt you'd just shrug that off. It's in the large scale aggregation of all this data, the selling and reselling without consent, that we go from not being private to being actively surveilled.
(Disclaimer: I live near a proud MAGA cop and so I try to imagine any such technology in the hands of a person who has an almost unfettered authority to kill coupled with an entitled authoritarian mindset and really poor judgment and risk assessment.)
"A comprehensive look, giving myself to AI using ALPR data, captured moments in time, not a comprehensive picture of who I am or where I was going"
This guy sounds pretty naive about what AI models are capable of.
Thanks, Dave. Nice article with some great supplements. I look forward to reading those.
It was a good meeting. I'm glad that everyone came out.
The first order of business is transparency. One initial action item is for the WLPD to share their contract with Flock (and any other similar vendors) so the public can review what type of agreement the City is entering into on behalf of the Public.
Another one would be to release the current policies that govern all of the technology systems that are in place and utilized by WLPD. I am sure there are systems we are unaware of.
From there, we can study and ask more questions, resulting in legislative action from the City Council. They were there, as you reported, so they know that ask is coming.
---
Quick question: It wasn't clear to me in the text, but I assume this was Mayor Easter's quote?
“I think our police have deployed the technology properly, and I trust the West Lafayette Police Department with the work they do and the care they take. … I think Chief Ferguson is committed to following up with questions tonight and being transparent.”
To that I would say, "Sure. But let's verify that trust."
Yes, that attribution was dropped. I’ll fix that. Thanks.
No problem. It made sense, but I wanted to be sure. Thank you, again.
Time to oust any elected officials, regardless of party, that are pro-Flock and therefore pro-ICE and pro-domestic-violence
I don't think you get to complain about Flock cameras if you have a Ring doorbell or a Facebook account.
Cops must be dismayed about this uproar, having been thoroughly trained that any bystander can record them doing their jobs, in personally identifiable detail, because things happening in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cops that think the public supports them tend to be good cops, cops that think they are on their own are more likely to resort to force.
That said, if we can leverage outrage to get lasting privacy protections, in the form of a constitutional amendment that even the Roberts court respects, I'll bring the hacksaw and spray paint myself.
Agree with you re: Ring cameras, but not re social media accounts. In the latter people choose to broadcast their information, but in the former people are recorded without their consent. I think the "recorded" part is the really the important distinguishing word there. Yes, you don't expect privacy when you're out walking in public. But if a person were following you around with a camera and said "Hey, you have no expectation of privacy" I doubt you'd just shrug that off. It's in the large scale aggregation of all this data, the selling and reselling without consent, that we go from not being private to being actively surveilled.
(Disclaimer: I live near a proud MAGA cop and so I try to imagine any such technology in the hands of a person who has an almost unfettered authority to kill coupled with an entitled authoritarian mindset and really poor judgment and risk assessment.)