Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes a whitelist makes a lot of sense, I don't know why I didn't think of that. Seems like it would be doable to blanket allow office supplies, gas, uniforms, etc. and then declare that anything else, even if it's free, must be approved by the public. If it's something uncontroversial then you can just update the ordinance.

Donations would be less of a problem with this system in place, but I still think it would be irresponsible to accept a donation without a plan to pay for it in the future if donations stop, and I also wouldn't want officers to feel indebted to some rich guy.

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.

> Why is the money a red herring?

Because even $1 for surveillance is too much.