A federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent on a Chicago area task force used Palos Heights Detective Todd Hutchinson’s login credentials to perform unauthorized searches this past January. Group chat screenshots obtained via public records request show the detective and the feds discussing the incident.
It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I’m not sure what kind of person you are, but I’m sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you’re religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you’re not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there’s probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There’s no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it’s very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn’t worth the benefits.
But if they did criminalise my favourite hobby, and they had evidence that I’m continuing to do that hobby in plain sight, they see me doing it every day……I’d expect them to come get me. That makes sense. It makes no sense to have that technology there to be used to find some crimes but not others.
I see what you’re saying. You’re not talking about “making sense” in an ethical or social well-being sense, you mean it’s literally confusing why the technology wouldn’t be used for all kinds of crimes, given that it already exists - irrespective of whether the technology should be used. Is that right? I think you’re getting downvoted because it kinda sounds like you’re saying this is all a good idea when you say it “makes sense”. Unfortunate English ambiguities. But you’re saying, like, sure it’s dystopian and creepy and wrong, but why wouldn’t the creepy dystopia use the tech for all cases then rather than just some? That’s a good question. I think because there is legitimately some understanding of the dangers of using these powerful tools willy-nilly. While people aren’t perfect angels, they also aren’t perfect devils either. Another factor is that there is some pressure to appear not to be overly heavy-handed with these tools - as we see in those chats, they knew it made them look bad for this to get out.
And the final most pessimistic factor is that this Flock company almost certainly charges per seat, so giving direct usernames and logins to every officer or even every department is probably absurdly expensive. Companies (in this case the police) will often try to limit their license seats to as few people as possible and then just funnel as much different people’s work through that one person’s license as they can.
It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I’m not sure what kind of person you are, but I’m sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you’re religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you’re not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there’s probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There’s no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it’s very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn’t worth the benefits.
But if they did criminalise my favourite hobby, and they had evidence that I’m continuing to do that hobby in plain sight, they see me doing it every day……I’d expect them to come get me. That makes sense. It makes no sense to have that technology there to be used to find some crimes but not others.
I see what you’re saying. You’re not talking about “making sense” in an ethical or social well-being sense, you mean it’s literally confusing why the technology wouldn’t be used for all kinds of crimes, given that it already exists - irrespective of whether the technology should be used. Is that right? I think you’re getting downvoted because it kinda sounds like you’re saying this is all a good idea when you say it “makes sense”. Unfortunate English ambiguities. But you’re saying, like, sure it’s dystopian and creepy and wrong, but why wouldn’t the creepy dystopia use the tech for all cases then rather than just some? That’s a good question. I think because there is legitimately some understanding of the dangers of using these powerful tools willy-nilly. While people aren’t perfect angels, they also aren’t perfect devils either. Another factor is that there is some pressure to appear not to be overly heavy-handed with these tools - as we see in those chats, they knew it made them look bad for this to get out.
And the final most pessimistic factor is that this Flock company almost certainly charges per seat, so giving direct usernames and logins to every officer or even every department is probably absurdly expensive. Companies (in this case the police) will often try to limit their license seats to as few people as possible and then just funnel as much different people’s work through that one person’s license as they can.