this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
200 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

43542 readers
261 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Considering the ridiculous amount of stalking from cops using these cameras, no, I don't think people would be OK with only local cops having access

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the cops were in control, they'd be violating the fourth amendment when they do that without going to the courts

Where as if it's a private service the police department pays for, it's a legal gray area

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Stalking is also illegal. Doesn't seem to stop them

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not saying I trust the police. I'm saying if it's outright unconstitutional to access without the courts, the IT department is going to put checks in the system

It's like how you can't trust HR to protect you personally, but you can rely on them to protect the organization

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I understand it is unconstitutional. My point is that it simply does not matter to the cops. Again, the easier thing is to not have cameras at all. Systems can be circumvented. Not having the cameras at all makes it so nobody can abuse them. Mass surveillance is not necessary or good.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, not doing mass surveillance altogether sounds like a great idea... I'm not sure that's directly possible right now though

My point is that it's not just a worse version of mass surveillance, it's orders of magnitude worse. It absolves everyone from any actual responsibility, and in doing so absolutely guarantees these systems will be abused by police

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't that level of faith in the court, especially the SCOTUS, to have that level of optimism.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's not about the court's enforcement, it's about responsibility

Every organization out there preserves itself. It's why we have legal and HR departments. They don't exist to protect their people, they exist to protect the organization

If a police department was caught wildly misusing unconstitutional searches, every case they tried in that period is opened to that exposure. That's not just a huge embarrassment, it's a massive amount of work that will tie up the local justice system for a significant period

That's the kind of damage that can kill a police department wholesale, or at least cleanly sweep away all the leadership

The organization will protect itself against this kind of thing, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because organizations must preserve themselves or fade away. They'll put in checks that will leave an audit trail and/or require a document ID to use such a system, because that's what it takes to protect the organization. They'll offload the responsibility onto the officers, and enforce the rules (even if just a slap on the wrist). That's simply how organizations act, descriptively

I'm not saying that police in charge would be better, so much as this situation is so much worse. No one has responsibility here. The private company is not limited by the Constitution, and the police are just using a subscription to a commercial service

No one has to take responsibility if this turns into an issue. It's the same as consulting companies and AI rejections - the primary purpose is to make it so when someone creates manmade horrors beyond comprehension, no one is responsible

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 points 3 hours ago

I 100% get where you're coming from. I don't even disagree that it is a simple excuse to ignore responsibility. From experience, I know police departments simply don't care about that. Look at Seattle Police. They spent 13 years under federal oversight, marginally improved, then the feds ended it, despite still being incredibly horrible to non-white, non-straight people.

https://southseattleemerald.org/voices/2025/10/23/opinion-seattle-police-are-not-reformed-ending-federal-oversight-betrays-public-safety

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They should have to get a warrant, because of the fourth amendment.

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 4 points 4 days ago

Should, yes, but they won't. Cops in the US are some of the most corrupt people. The simpler and safer solution is to not have the cameras at all. Mass surveillance is never the answer