I don't think that police should be allowed to ask camera owners to voluntarily hand over footage, even if they would be willing to. That just allows them to privatize the mechanism of surveillance, similar to using data brokers to get around warrant requirements. Instead, I think that even where camera owners would willingly hand over footage, the state should still be required to obtain a warrant for said footage in order to preserve legal safeguards around evidence collection.

▲

bradknowles 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m okay with them asking private citizens. I own my own cameras, and that video lives on my own NVRs, and all of that is 100% on my own property. And I get to choose if I want to share that with them, presumably to help solve a crime that has affected one of my neighbors. But they need to come ask me and talk to me in person.

I’m not okay with them using the third-party doctrine and going to a company like Amazon and having them do a dragnet for them.

And I’m really not okay with having a company like Flock make all that information publicly available to any bozo with a friend at a law enforcement organization who wants to make a little money on the side.

▲

kennywinker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> And I get to choose if I want to share that with them

Are you sure about that?

Not sure where you are what laws specifically apply, but I believe you could be compelled to hand over footage, and jailed for obstruction or destruction of evidence if you didn’t.

Just a thought - you may have less control than you think.

▲

jacobolus 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

> you could be compelled to hand over footage

If they need to get a court order signed by a judge to recover material that is directly relevant to a legally justified criminal investigation, then there's significantly less scope for abuse than what cops are doing with the flock mass surveillance system, where some have literally written "LMAO" in the form field describing the reason for their search, and where they've been using the searches to stalk citizens who are not suspected of any crime.

	▲	kennywinker 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh absolutely. Non-cloud cameras are far less prone to abuse. But to say you control the footage isn’t entirely true. For instance, if the government wanted to build a case against you for something you’ve done they didn't like…

▲

SauciestGNU 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the current status quo and has been generally reasonable in the past, but with dragnet surveillance becoming the norm I would vastly prefer that a judge review and authorize any police interest in my footage. I don't think we can trust that the state is being forthright about their reasons for wanting the footage or that the investigation for which the footage requested is legitimate, and the state has extreme latitude to lie to people in order to further its interests.