• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

I'm in a meeting with the CEO of this research group. This looks like very promising technology.
http://www.virtualtrafficstop.com/
The Virtual Traffic Stop app aims to reduce tensions between drivers and law enforcement during routine traffic stops. Drivers and officers can use the video chat and other features to simplify the exchange of information and communication between the two. Motorists using the Virtual Traffic Stop can store documentation that they are required to have during a traffic stop on their personal mobile device. During a routine traffic stop, drivers send these documents and other information to the Police officer without leaving the patrol car. Additionally, the two parties will see and hear each other via a video chat to further reduce tensions.
Click to expand...
 
PhDeac said:
I'm in a meeting with the CEO of this research group. This looks like very promising technology.
http://www.virtualtrafficstop.com/
Click to expand...

Interesting. Such tech would greatly reduce the officer's ability to look around in the car and form a "reasonable suspicion" justifying a search. Moreover, the video would be recorded, so if an officer says s/he saw something on the video that gave "reasonable suspicion", that would be more easily reviewed by a court.

I expect the knee-jerk law enforcement response would be negative. They will perceive this to hinder the "war on drugs", not to mention asset forfeiture profiteering.
 
I don’t care for that idea at all. Seems like a really bad idea to invest in surveillance technology.
 
MHBDemon said:
I don’t care for that idea at all. Seems like a really bad idea to invest in surveillance technology.
Click to expand...

It’s communication technology to cut down face to face interaction in traffic stops.

The app would need to be disconnected from Location data.

It’s an intermediate step before abolition.
 
I'm gonna push back and say that spending more money on police technology is moving in the wrong direction from abolition
 
I dont personally want to give the police access to the camera on my phone.
 
but it stands to reason that if the DMV can digitally keep up with my: license, registration, insurance, and taxes, that the police shouldn't need to make me show them at a traffic stop.
 
avalon said:
That is fucked up and scary.

There is something funny about seeing these dudes dressed like they're going to war load up in a mini van and run away. Seems much more appropriate than the military vehicles.

Click to expand...

 
I see that app as people technology not police technology.

It doesn’t take much to see this Portland situation as a despotic leader using paramilitary squads to round up dissidents.

What Republicans claim will happen to their freedom is already happening to the freedom of others.
 
PhDeac said:
I see that app as people technology not police technology.
.
Click to expand...
That's a distinction without a difference.
Trying to understand your viewpoint here - is it that the police can already spy on people, so this makes no difference, or is it that the police don't spy on people, so this is safe?
 
I'm confused, is this guy a CEO or a comp sci prof/researcher because the website carefully chooses from the best of both the business and academic worlds.
 
TownieDeac said:
Apart from body cams? Including body cams?
Click to expand...

I think body cams are an interesting case -- makes good sense in theory

they seem to be helpful in some instances, and miraculously damaged/turned off/non-functional in many critical instances -- they also get released at the discretion of authorities, so they don't necessarily provide transparency

but, generally speaking, I think adding to police technology budgets is not good
 
had a conversation with the police department of a town in California where we're looking to build supportive housing and they're asking for access to security cameras at the property

it's a decision above my station, but I do not like it


police chief had thin blue line artwork in his office on the Zoom call
 
Real-time visual surveillance risks and police adoption issues aside, this app asks you to submit pictures of your drivers license, registration card, and insurance card to their servers? That's a lot of pretty personal data for a third-party to hold, imo.

It'd be nice if they even had some documentation on their security practices in light of that.
 
TenaciousKory said:
Real-time visual surveillance risks and police adoption issues aside, this app asks you to submit pictures of your drivers license, registration card, and insurance card to their servers? That's a lot of pretty personal data for a third-party to hold, imo.

It'd be nice if they even had some documentation on their security practices in light of that.
Click to expand...

That's like going around your ass to get to your elbow. Why would the government need to get third party access to government documents? It makes no sense. I appreciate anyone making an effort to de-escalate civilian police confrontations, but the answer there is regulating the police, not third party access to my private information and increased surveillance technology.
 
PhDeac said:
It’s communication technology to cut down face to face interaction in traffic stops.

The app would need to be disconnected from Location data.

It’s an intermediate step before abolition.
Click to expand...

To expand on what Juice said:

This is what Mariame Kaba says about reforms you should always oppose:

Here is a simple guide for evaluating any suggested “reforms” of U.S. policing in this historical moment.

1. Are the proposed reforms allocating more money to the police? If yes, then you should oppose them.
2. Are the proposed reforms advocating for MORE police and policing (under euphemistic terms like “community policing” run out of regular police districts)? If yes, then you should oppose them.
3. Are the proposed reforms primarily technology-focused? If yes, then you should oppose them because:
a. It means more money to the police.
b. Said technology is more likely to be turned against the public than it is to be used against cops.
c. Police violence won’t end through technological advances (no matter what someone is selling you
Click to expand...
 
So does the cop text you your speeding ticket or does he still have to walk to your window to give it to you ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top