Privacy, surveilance and economics in this age of AI

[RustVendor]

It’s legal to hire a PI to surveil someone

in the context of his hypothetical it would be harassment at a certain point. Not if you did it once or with a purpose, but if you just like paid a PI to surveil someone for a year 24 hours a day there would be a point at which it would be criminally and civilly problematic.

 

[treelogger]

hiring a PI to follow someone around like that is definitely stalking and harassment even if they use several different agents.

I respectfully disagree. Stakeout by process servers is perfectly legal, and often the only way to serve papers on people who actively avoid service. But expensive. Serving companies even advertise the pricing for stakeouts.

And hiring an investigation company (bonded, licensed, with a good justification) to observe the daily habits often 24x7 is also perfectly legal, albeit very expensive, and not always successful. Professionals in this field know how to this without breaking the law, and usually without getting noticed. If you think a lawyer is expensive, you should see the bills from background investigators. But this doesn't always work. For example, "public figures" (politicians, CEOs even of medium companies) are all trained into being more observant, and they will notice if they are being followed. And any person who gets security (not just the governor with his special CHP escort, but even lowly executives who have someone from "corporate security" drive with them for their daily commute) are hard to track, since the professional will be more aware.

In a perverse way, that's one of the reasons I actually want the Flock data to be universally accessible: It would save me good money. No, I'm not being serious ... this is not a good justification.

 

[treelogger]

I don't know if there's is any justification to prohibit them Constitutionally or otherwise. But I'd certainly like to know in what capacity Palantir (and the likes of) is deriving and using that data - perhaps in conjunction with my SSN, credit history, my kids info... I want to know what use they have for it or if they're selling it or targeting me and for what reasons.

That way we can determine if prohibiting or limiting them is justified. And this should be disclosed in a manner that "average Americans" can understand.

So, how about this proposal: All data that Flock collects MUST BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, to anyone, free of charge. Indexed as well as it is for agencies.

Similarly, in the long tradition of sunshine: All data government agencies have, with very narrow exceptions, needs to be PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND FREE OF CHARGE. Today, we have a lot of that already (like building permits are now accessible in my county, as are public records and court documents). Obviously, the exceptions need to include current criminal investigations (don't tip off the suspect), some financial or personal details that would lead to fraud (like redact out all account numbers, passwords, fingerprints), and perhaps stuff relating to minors and certain health conditions.

In a nutshell: Anything that today can be retrieved under a FOIA or PRA request needs to just be directly accessible.

Anyone think this would be a good idea?

 

[john_marsten_1873]

So, how about this proposal: All data that Flock collects MUST BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, to anyone, free of charge. Indexed as well as it is for agencies.

Similarly, in the long tradition of sunshine: All data government agencies have, with very narrow exceptions, needs to be PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND FREE OF CHARGE. Today, we have a lot of that already (like building permits are now accessible in my county, as are public records and court documents). Obviously, the exceptions need to include current criminal investigations (don't tip off the suspect), some financial or personal details that would lead to fraud (like redact out all account numbers, passwords, fingerprints), and perhaps stuff relating to minors and certain health conditions.

In a nutshell: Anything that today can be retrieved under a FOIA or PRA request needs to just be directly accessible.

Anyone think this would be a good idea?

What are some of your other ideas or potential solutions to be transparent with the public about what data companies like Palantir and Flock collect and how they use it? How does it differ in their capacities as both private companies and government contractors?

 

[RustVendor]

I respectfully disagree. Stakeout by process servers is perfectly legal, and often the only way to serve papers on people who actively avoid service. But expensive. Serving companies even advertise the pricing for stakeouts.

And hiring an investigation company (bonded, licensed, with a good justification) to observe the daily habits often 24x7 is also perfectly legal, albeit very expensive, and not always successful. Professionals in this field know how to this without breaking the law, and usually without getting noticed. If you think a lawyer is expensive, you should see the bills from background investigators. But this doesn't always work. For example, "public figures" (politicians, CEOs even of medium companies) are all trained into being more observant, and they will notice if they are being followed. And any person who gets security (not just the governor with his special CHP escort, but even lowly executives who have someone from "corporate security" drive with them for their daily commute) are hard to track, since the professional will be more aware.

In a perverse way, that's one of the reasons I actually want the Flock data to be universally accessible: It would save me good money. No, I'm not being serious ... this is not a good justification.

Na, that would be harassment and would allow someone to seek a restraining order:

CCP § 527.6​

(3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

 

[Gawernator]

in the context of his hypothetical it would be harassment at a certain point. Not if you did it once or with a purpose, but if you just like paid a PI to surveil someone for a year 24 hours a day there would be a point at which it would be criminally and civilly problematic.

Depends if they ever realized they’re being surveilled or not. It’s pretty rare I get burned hard like that. I’m sure plenty are not as good. lol.

But to be stalking they have to tell you to stop following them and you have to continue. So if they don’t know you are then it’s not stalking.

 

[Gawernator]

Na, that would be harassment and would allow someone to seek a restraining order:

CCP § 527.6​

(3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

In the Intel world we call that “hostile surveillance” which is how the t Russians would do it. That’s not the American style.

A PI doing that could be punished or lose their license theoretically

 

[Gawernator]

I respectfully disagree. Stakeout by process servers is perfectly legal, and often the only way to serve papers on people who actively avoid service. But expensive. Serving companies even advertise the pricing for stakeouts.

And hiring an investigation company (bonded, licensed, with a good justification) to observe the daily habits often 24x7 is also perfectly legal, albeit very expensive, and not always successful. Professionals in this field know how to this without breaking the law, and usually without getting noticed. If you think a lawyer is expensive, you should see the bills from background investigators. But this doesn't always work. For example, "public figures" (politicians, CEOs even of medium companies) are all trained into being more observant, and they will notice if they are being followed. And any person who gets security (not just the governor with his special CHP escort, but even lowly executives who have someone from "corporate security" drive with them for their daily commute) are hard to track, since the professional will be more aware.

In a perverse way, that's one of the reasons I actually want the Flock data to be universally accessible: It would save me good money. No, I'm not being serious ... this is not a good justification.

I don’t think process servers are allowed to conduct surveillance in CA?

But yeah $100-150 an hour all day for that

Most good attorneys I work with are charging like $400-600 an hour. They’re definitely a lot more than a BI

 

[RustVendor]

Depends if they ever realized they’re being surveilled or not. It’s pretty rare I get burned hard like that. I’m sure plenty are not as good. lol.

But to be stalking they have to tell you to stop following them and you have to continue. So if they don’t know you are then it’s not stalking.

For sure but I'm creating a hypothetical analogy to constant surveillance by AI. If a person did the same thing as Flock by surveiling someone 24 hours a day until the end of time it would be harassment. We know these surveillance systems exist and under the statutory definition why couldn't I get a restraining order against them? You have to admit it would be highly unusual to surveil someone 24 hours a day, forever.

 

[Gawernator]

For sure but I'm creating a hypothetical analogy to constant surveillance by AI. If a person did the same thing as Flock by surveiling someone 24 hours a day until the end of time it would be harassment. We know these surveillance systems exist and under the statutory definition why couldn't I get a restraining order against them? You have to admit it would be highly unusual to surveil someone 24 hours a day, forever.

Honestly it will have to go to courts and I think they’ll favor in rule of the cameras since the legal precedent is already there. The only difference is how smart these cameras are. Traffic and city cameras are already 24/7 and legal

 

[RustVendor]

Honestly it will have to go to courts and I think they’ll favor in rule of the cameras since the legal precedent is already there. The only difference is how smart these cameras are. Traffic and city cameras are already 24/7 and legal

It's more the data, like with Flock someone has data about everywhere they went and did. With current laws you may be right but why is it ok for a computer to do it when a person would get a restraining order for doing the same thing? As I posted above there are real dangers, over 100 cops with criminal charges for abusing Flock data. It's only been like a year

 

[Gawernator]

It's more the data, like with Flock someone has data about everywhere they went and did. With current laws you may be right but why is it ok for a computer to do it when a person would get a restraining order for doing the same thing? As I posted above there are real dangers, over 100 cops with criminal charges for abusing Flock data. It's only been like a year

Honestly I don’t know

 

[treelogger]

Na, that would be harassment and would allow someone to seek a restraining order:

CCP § 527.6​

(3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

A: If the person being followed notices that they are being followed or watched (for example keep staring at the car), they break off. And maybe get someone else to continue. That takes care of the "alarm, annoy" clause.

B: Look for the "serves no legitimate purpose". If I have a judgement, the debtor is actively avoiding paying, is refusing to disclose where there bank accounts are, then I definitely do have a legitimate purpose. Matter-of-fact, they are much better off having someone follow them to the bank, because if they keep playing that game, very soon I will ask the court for an Order to Show Cause, then a "writ of body attachment" (which is a follow-on to the writ of execution), and then they get arrested and put in jail until the next hearing , since a writ of body attachment is also known as a bench warrant.

So yes, you can do surveillance for a legitimate purpose. Matter-of-fact, investigation companies REALLY don't want to get dragged into court cases or a FDCPA (Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act) violation, so they will make sure the purpose is ironclad. And collecting court judgements is about as good as it gets.

 

[RustVendor]

A: If the person being followed notices that they are being followed or watched (for example keep staring at the car), they break off. And maybe get someone else to continue. That takes care of the "alarm, annoy" clause.

B: Look for the "serves no legitimate purpose". If I have a judgement, the debtor is actively avoiding paying, is refusing to disclose where there bank accounts are, then I definitely do have a legitimate purpose. Matter-of-fact, they are much better off having someone follow them to the bank, because if they keep playing that game, very soon I will ask the court for an Order to Show Cause, then a "writ of body attachment" (which is a follow-on to the writ of execution), and then they get arrested and put in jail until the next hearing , since a writ of body attachment is also known as a bench warrant.

So yes, you can do surveillance for a legitimate purpose. Matter-of-fact, investigation companies REALLY don't want to get dragged into court cases or a FDCPA (Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act) violation, so they will make sure the purpose is ironclad. And collecting court judgements is about as good as it gets.

That doesn't relate to what we are talking about which is surveiling someone arbitrarily which hitlstorically LE have needed a warrant for.

 

[AT&T Operator]

Don't really mind Flock.

Then again, I--

(a) drive around with 26 license plates epoxied to my front end and trunk;
(b) use a wheelchair to get around on public sidewalks so the cameras can't analyze my gait;
(c) frequently wear silly masks and wigs in a variety of colors;
(d) dye my skin platinum silver on weekends to blur the image capture; and,
(e) avoid all freeways, highways and interstates by driving only through tract neighborhoods on my 4 hour commute to work.

Just have to adapt to the changing times.

 

[treelogger]

What are some of your other ideas or potential solutions to be transparent with the public about what data companies like Palantir and Flock collect and how they use it? How does it differ in their capacities as both private companies and government contractors?

What does "transparent with the public" mean?

The data sources for the data-industrial complex (which includes some of the NxA/O agencies) include:

• Free data, such as social media.
• Free observations, such as license plate readers.
• Publicly available data, such as county real estate records, court records, building permits, which for example title companies and legal research firms such as Lexis-Nexis already have indexed.
• Other government operational data, such as tax returns, and all the data shipped to the IRS by employers and banks (such as the 1099-interest), or social security data (how much social security and medicare tax was paid), or VA data for veterans, and quite a few other sources.

Would is be sufficient for your purposes if the US government simply printed all that on a postcard once a year in a general form, and mailed it to everyone?

Then there is data that is not person specific. For example, the National Weather Service has a ton of data. The National Park Service probably knows more about the sex life of every protected species than I care to find out. Since that doesn't map back to people, does it worry you? Does it need to be disclosed?

Obviously, the law enforcement agencies (FBI, SS, ...) have more data, but that is neither shareable nor inspectable. Some of it might be processed by things like Palantir software (or by many other vendors, companies like IBM and Northrop-Grumman are also big into data processing), but it can't be shared with these companies (it remains under control of the agencies).

And the same argument applies to the intelligence agencies. So the NSA probably knows exactly ... never mind that, but it's a lot. The NGA has incredibly good satellite pictures, and can probably tell whether you're having a margarita, gin tonic, or white zinfandel in your hot tub (by the color of the liquid in the glass). But (a) none of that data is under control of anyone other than the agencies, in particular not of commercial companies, and (b) it can not possible be shared, in particular with the public. Sending someone a postcard that says "we saw you drink a margarita last Saturday" is dumb, on many levels.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to only being able to disclose generalities. But it would be really nice if they could simply make access to that data easier, and to all other data.

Real-world example: Last three years, I made a small mistake on my tax returns, which means that the IRS owes me money. Lots of money, enough that it's worth the effort to get it back. So I filed amended tax returns for the last three years. Fine. Two of the three were paid, and all I got is a brief letter saying "you return for 2023 was changed", with ZERO detail or explanation, and a check for exactly the amount I requested. Fabulous. The third year I haven't heard anything back yet. There is no IRS web site where I can check the status (for some reason the "check my return" web site doesn't have any of the amended ones). I tried calling, and after 45 minutes on hold I had to get busy doing real work. Why doesn't have IRS have a complete web site where I can see all my tax returns, all the processing, the status of anything that is in process? The answer is simple: Because it would cost extra to set this up, and it's not worth it. I think this is the kind of real-world problem that needs to be solved.

 

[treelogger]

I don’t think process servers are allowed to conduct surveillance in CA?

I don't know whether they are allowed to do surveillance. Investigators are.

Process servers are allowed to do "stakeout", which means they sit in front of the parties house in their car all day, and the moment the front door opens, they hand the envelope to the person. Last time I did that it was $80 an hour during normal business hours, more in the evening, and took three days (I guess the party eventually had to do a grocery run, ha ha). I've seen cases where parties know that they are being served, and do their damnedest to not get anywhere near the front door.

By the way, pro tip for other folks who want to due process service: Many parties who refused to get served by normal process servers can get tricked in two ways. First, you can actually hire the sheriff's department to perform service; they're a little more expensive than bottom-of-the-barrel serving companies (ABC Legal, icky), but often parties will open the door if there is a sheriff's car in the driveway and a deputy in uniform at the door.

Second, some process servers know good tricks. For example: Show up in a pickup truck that looks like a plumber (complete with cargo rack and pipes on top), wear dirty coveralls and a baseball cap that says "Bob's Plumbing", and carry the kind of aluminum box clipboard contractors use. Or drive a hearse and wear a black suit with a black tie. I've worked with servers who actually enjoy that part of the business, the games and dress-up.

But yeah $100-150 an hour all day for that

Now take that times 24 hours (or at least 6am until midnight to get all their movement), and double or triple it for having multiple people, and we're talking good money. On the other hand, if it allows me to collect a $1M judgement, it's worth it.

Most good attorneys I work with are charging like $400-600 an hour. They’re definitely a lot more than a BI

Yes, but a good attorney gets something simple done in half an hour, and something complicated in two hours. Whereas the investigator may have to spend 3 x 2 x 24 hours to figure out which bank branch the party goes to.

 

[treelogger]

That doesn't relate to what we are talking about which is surveiling someone arbitrarily which hitlstorically LE have needed a warrant for.

I know, the discussion of legal forms of private surveillance is only somewhat related to the question whether Flock/Palantir/... constitutes a search that requires warrants.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

What does "transparent with the public" mean?

The data sources for the data-industrial complex (which includes some of the NxA/O agencies) include:

• Free data, such as social media.
• Free observations, such as license plate readers.
• Publicly available data, such as county real estate records, court records, building permits, which for example title companies and legal research firms such as Lexis-Nexis already have indexed.
• Other government operational data, such as tax returns, and all the data shipped to the IRS by employers and banks (such as the 1099-interest), or social security data (how much social security and medicare tax was paid), or VA data for veterans, and quite a few other sources.

Would is be sufficient for your purposes if the US government simply printed all that on a postcard once a year in a general form, and mailed it to everyone?

Then there is data that is not person specific. For example, the National Weather Service has a ton of data. The National Park Service probably knows more about the sex life of every protected species than I care to find out. Since that doesn't map back to people, does it worry you? Does it need to be disclosed?

Obviously, the law enforcement agencies (FBI, SS, ...) have more data, but that is neither shareable nor inspectable. Some of it might be processed by things like Palantir software (or by many other vendors, companies like IBM and Northrop-Grumman are also big into data processing), but it can't be shared with these companies (it remains under control of the agencies).

And the same argument applies to the intelligence agencies. So the NSA probably knows exactly ... never mind that, but it's a lot. The NGA has incredibly good satellite pictures, and can probably tell whether you're having a margarita, gin tonic, or white zinfandel in your hot tub (by the color of the liquid in the glass). But (a) none of that data is under control of anyone other than the agencies, in particular not of commercial companies, and (b) it can not possible be shared, in particular with the public. Sending someone a postcard that says "we saw you drink a margarita last Saturday" is dumb, on many levels.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to only being able to disclose generalities. But it would be really nice if they could simply make access to that data easier, and to all other data.

Real-world example: Last three years, I made a small mistake on my tax returns, which means that the IRS owes me money. Lots of money, enough that it's worth the effort to get it back. So I filed amended tax returns for the last three years. Fine. Two of the three were paid, and all I got is a brief letter saying "you return for 2023 was changed", with ZERO detail or explanation, and a check for exactly the amount I requested. Fabulous. The third year I haven't heard anything back yet. There is no IRS web site where I can check the status (for some reason the "check my return" web site doesn't have any of the amended ones). I tried calling, and after 45 minutes on hold I had to get busy doing real work. Why doesn't have IRS have a complete web site where I can see all my tax returns, all the processing, the status of anything that is in process? The answer is simple: Because it would cost extra to set this up, and it's not worth it. I think this is the kind of real-world problem that needs to be solved.

"transparent with the public about what data companies like Palantir and Flock collect and how they use it?"

I'm not at all asking that they dump the actual data to the public. I want to know how their using data they collect and that they're given access to.

There can be a bipartisan congressional committee or task force that investigates this and reports back? I'd even go so far as appointing a special master to investigate.

Are you of the mindset that there's nothing to see here? Everything is above bar Flock, Palantir and the likes of and this is unfair criticism?

 

[treelogger]

but why is it ok for a computer to do it when a person would get a restraining order for doing the same thing?

As I've said above: Doing legal surveillance for a legitimate purpose would not get a restraining order. No judge would sign a restraining order against a licensed PI if the party has an outstanding judgement and obvious collections paperwork, and the only complaint in the request is "they keep following me, and I keep seeing the same cars in the distance". The first thing a judge (or more accurately the court staff and attorney) does when presented with a restraining order request is to look up the legal history of the parties involved, which is right in the computer in front of them.