> According to our analysis, the camera’s logs recorded about 21 days of activity across several periods. During those windows, the device photographed roughly 50,200 vehicles and generated about 1.6 million images. On a typical day, it logged around 3,300 vehicles, with a high of 4,454.
Has there been any report about which state this camera was recovered in? New Hampshire has a strict 3 minute rule for non-hit plate data before the captured images and records must be deleted [1].
[1] (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 261:75-b) requires ALPR systems to delete non-hit plate data within 3 minutes
The images were deleted the moment they were uploaded. But the record in the log files persisted. The camera doesn't have enough memory to store that many data.
> The images were deleted the moment they were uploaded.
???
> VIII. Records of number plates read by each LPR shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture [...]
But you're saying that these non-hit image captures were uploaded somewhere?
- Camera takes picture
- Camera pre-checks the picture for quality and that there's something on there that they want
- Camera uploads picture to flock servers
- Camera deletes picture locally
- Rinse and repeat
I could actually see this being done by three jobs in parallel.
If there are a lot of images found on the camera then that's probably because the upload wasn't able to keep up with the amount of data that was created or they have a buffer of a few days or there's a cronjob that deletes these files every now and then...
Unless they actually use the camera also as the storage, which would be really stupid, but sometimes people to stupid things.
It sounds like this whole thing is just in violation of New Hampshire state law.
But was this in New Hampshire? The retention policy is set by the customer.
IANAL. So that's something I cannot tell.
This does not seem to be the case. 404media's article includes extracted (redacted) images
That same NH law perhaps more importantly limits ALPR use to law enforcement officers.
That might be debatable
https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/
[flagged]
I know several police officers and none of them fit this description. I'm sure there are officers that do; I have Youtube too. But this is a pretty gross way to refer to about 1,000,000 people doing an extraordinarily difficult job.
K. And cops also have guns, tear gas, the right to pull people over, arrest them, etc. etc. If they cannot be trusted with a licence plate database, then they can't really be trusted with those either.
Are you advocating to just abolish police so that whoever is willing to use the most force can be in charge of everything? Like Mexico, but with less policing!
Or to just remove all their weapons and legal powers so that they can just ask people to 'please stop doing crime'?
Or just that we should only allow high-IQ college graduates to be cops? It sure doesn't seem like there are enough of those interested in that line of work. As it is, it already pays well, and yet I can hardly think of anyone I know who has even considered being a cop.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but just asserting "police bad" doesn't seem like it even comes close to trying to solve any problems.
(Before you ask me why i'm such a bootlicker, I'd just like to point out that the cops are the only reason we don't all have delicious cartel boots (or their bullets) in our mouths already.)
"And cops also have guns, tear gas, the right to pull people over, arrest them, etc. etc. If they cannot be trusted with a licence plate database, then they can't really be trusted with those either."
now you're getting it.
"cops are the only reason we don't all have delicious cartel boots (or their bullets) in our mouths already"
citation needed.
And since you're looking for some solutions to these problems, here are a few: end qualified immunity, make peace officers obtain licensure and insurance so when the shitheads fuck up they are personally liable for their corruption, dissole internal affairs and move the investigations to a third party. In terms of reducing crime: tax the ever loving fuck out of anyone worth more than a million, dump those taxes into public services like education and healthcare so people aren't forced into deviance (further reading: https://www.simplypsychology.org/mertons-strain-theory-devia...)
> tax the ever loving fuck out of anyone worth more than a million, dump those taxes into public services like education and healthcare
Have you met California? That's literally the exact thing we do here. Yet our crime is terrible. And if you think throwing money at schools will translate automatically into better outcomes, it really isn't that simple. Schools with 50% more money hire more administrators and consultants and build way nicer facilities, but they don't just automatically turn out kids who are 50% more moral.
Healthcare is a similar joke. We spend more on healthcare than any nation! Yet we're not the most healthy. Why should we run up the score even more on how much tax money we spend on that when we've already proven it to be inefficient?
> people aren't forced into deviance
With respect, I do not believe that anyone is forced into deviance. People will always come from a diversity of levels of privilege (unless we convert to an economy like North Korea where the leader and their friends live well and everyone else is in poverty). Those who start out with the least will always have a choice to try to get ahead through crime or by honest means, just like everyone else does.
Wouldn't you say the rich aren't any more likely to actually follow the law as the poor? Why do they have agency, but poor criminals were predestined for crime?
[Edited to add the following: I believe that denying people's agency and treating them as helpless victims drawn irresistibly to crime, does a disservice to the disadvantaged. It tells those who are tempted, or those who have made mistakes, that they may as well do crime, since society expects them to anyway and says they are 'forced to.' And it erases/ignores those from poor backgrounds who did make something of themselves.]
> licensure and insurance
This doesn't seem like a serious idea to me. Licensure is no magic wand. The effect of malpractice insurance in medicine has arguably brought most of society very little benefit (other than attorneys).
A nationwide standard on censuring officers proportionally (up to and including suspension or ban from serving as a peace officer anywhere) for offenses of misuse of power makes sense and could be good policy. Most of the rest of this just sounds like unserious wishing that will never go anywhere.
The default retention policy is 7 days and the local customer (IE the police) can set it to whatever.
I wonder what can be done within 3 minutes?