555
Cities Panic Over Having to Release Mass Surveillance Recordings (www.nakedcapitalism.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This gets us to the central problem of today’s surveillance state. No one running the cameras wants to be observed. One reason that city officials object to releasing Flock data, for example, must that they themselves are among the recorded. The cameras are on them too; they too can be tracked. Everything means everything for these everywhere cameras.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

I'm not from the US, but it would seem to me that public cameras should only be accessible for legitimate purposes.

Police should need to request footage, but similarly, you shouldn't be able to just request any footage willy nilly, because of stalking.

Seems that it should be tightly regulated and require multiple people to gain access, and be documented who was given access.

Overall your comment seems like a great suggestion to me. If footage "goes missing", they had better have way more evidence to back up their charges.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    In reality it's supposed to be even more strict. They're trying to get around this by having a private company own the cameras. If the government owned the cameras, they would need to get a warrant with a sufficiently narrow target from a judge before initiating electronic surveillance to track the targets' location.

    If something is really going on which justifies it, getting a warrant is trivial and probable cause is a low bar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent