Why is the money a red herring? Just like in Oak Park, the police in Vegas are required to follow a democratic process for large purchases, and they were only able to avoid that with the money.

> Metro funds the project with donor money funneled into a private foundation. It’s an arrangement that allows Metro to avoid soliciting public comment on the surveillance technology

It doesn't matter whether the cameras are a good idea or not, the police should not be able to use a "donation" (from a guy who's going to profit from the donated equipment) to pretend they haven't done anything the public needs to know about.

The money is the main issue here, without it the public would have had a chance to discuss all the things you're talking about, and maybe reject them or put in some limitations. I would object to any secret arrangement like this, even if it was something completely innocuous like pencils for schools. There's no reason for significant acquisitions to be secret, and even if the government is acquiring something good and necessary, I don't want public services to be dependent on the generosity of some random dude without public discussion.

▲

tptacek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The large purchase has nothing to do with the actual problem! In Oak Park, OPPD rolled ALPR cameras out without bending a single rule because Flock structured a pilot deployment for them that came in under the purchase threshold. You aren't OK with that (and I'm not either) and it has nothing to do with the money.

▲

burkaman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok maybe this is just a semantic issue, but I'm still not understanding your argument that money has nothing to do with it. In your case, instead of having the founder donate the cameras, the company itself essentially donated them, I assume for a limited time. How is that not a money issue? When you said "a minor fracas erupted at the board", why did the board have a say at that point? Was it because the police now had to spend money, triggering public oversight?

It seems like the main problem you identified in your original comment is "I do believe you have to run a legit process to get them deployed." What is currently preventing this from happening? The only barrier I'm seeing is Ben Horowitz and Flock finding creative ways to temporarily let their customers not pay for their services.

▲

tptacek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know how to more clearly say that the purchasing thresholds for police departments are not the actual issue with ALPR deployment. What you need is affirmative consent from the board/council before they're deployed, regardless of cost. If you rely on cost thresholds, ALPR vendors will make arrangements to get deployed in ways that fit under those thresholds. That's exactly what happened to us.

I think maybe one thing that's happening here is that people thing literally the only possible control against unwanted ALPR deployment is expenditure rules. But this is a story about one way a large metro got around expenditure rules. Meanwhile: there are model ordinances you can adopt that completely moot the price/gift issue. Pass them!

The point of my comment is "here is something you can do besides yelling on message boards about how much you don't like surveillance".

▲

burkaman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think proactively passing a model ordinance is a good idea, but installing cameras is obviously not the only objectionable thing a police department can do. It isn't practical to make them get public approval for every acquisition regardless of cost, and it also isn't practical to brainstorm every possible bad thing they might ever try in the future and pass ordinances covering all of them.

I agree that the concrete bad thing that happened here is that cameras were installed without public consent. You are responding by saying "well the public should have predicted that and passed an ordinance before the police had a chance to try it". I am saying the police should be forced to consult the public when they make any significant acquisition, in any area, not just surveillance.

Perhaps the cost threshold could be amended to apply to the value of the good or services received, not the amount paid for them.

You also are not addressing the issue of government dependency on a private individual. Let's say Vegas has a public debate and decides they are in favor of cameras with no restrictions. Great, so is it now ok that Horowitz is donating them? No, it's still bad, because he might decide to stop being generous at any time, and then what happens? Vegas either suddenly loses an important service they depend on, or is forced to immediately pay whatever exorbitant price Flock/Horowitz comes up with.

▲

tptacek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

ACLU CCOPS covers all surveillance technology, broadly construed; it is not simply an anti-camera ordinance. The whole point of it is to codify what things require consent.

▲

burkaman an hour ago | parent [-]

Does it cover AI tools or things like predictive policing? What about heavy weapons and equipment? What if some guy decides to donate a bunch of tanks and rocket launchers? Drones? Personnel? Maybe a billionaire feels unsafe and donates $100 million for the police to hire hundreds of new cops to patrol the streets. Chemical weapons? "Education" from an extremist organization? Buildings? Maybe a "donor" could manipulate police presence by giving them land for police stations in specific areas. How about those high-pitched alarms that most adults can't hear, so that kids stay out of our donor's favorite part of town? Free high-powered legal defense for cops accused of crimes?

Do you understand what I'm saying? How is any community supposed to prevent every possible violation before it happens? Read through the history of police misconduct in this country and I'm sure you'll find some creative things you never would have thought of.

▲

tptacek an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes and yes. Donation doesn't change anything; it's deployment that trips the threshold. If you care about heavy weaponry, add that to your ordinance (it's not hard) but the concern on this thread is surveillance.

▲

burkaman an hour ago | parent [-]

I do not agree with the philosophy that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it wasn't explicitly prohibited in advance. That is the result of relying on ordinances that enumerate "what things require consent". A blanket expenditure limit is a better system in theory, but the article posted here demonstrates that it should actually be something like a "value added" limit. I am disagreeing with you that surveillance is the only concern in this thread. Private donations to the police of any kind are concerning when they bypass what is supposed to be a blanket limit on police power.

	▲	fc417fc802 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I honestly don't see the issue with private donations. Either it's something you want the police to have or it isn't. So the system needs to be structured to prevent them unilaterally deploying things that the bulk of the populace might not approve of. I agree that a blacklist approach doesn't work. But neither does an expenditure limit. A value added limit is I think just a roundabout way of expressing a whitelist approach? Which seems like the only sensible solution to me. Ideally all deployments should require case-by-case approval unless an ordinance is passed to blanket approve an entire technology class for a specific type of usage.

▲

strangattractor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Getting your foot in the door: I think that having a supposed non-profit foundation make a contribution to a local government that then purchases a product that directly benefits an investor in that company which also happens to run that same foundation seems if not illegal ethically challenged.

▲

warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why is the money a red herring?

Because even $1 for surveillance is too much.