Food Delivery Robots Are Feeding Camera Footage to the LAPD, Internal Emails Show (404media.co) 63
samleecole writes: A food delivery robot company that delivers for Uber Eats in Los Angeles provided video filmed by one of its robots to the Los Angeles Police Department as part of a criminal investigation, 404 Media has learned. The incident highlights the fact that delivery robots that are being deployed to sidewalks all around the country are essentially always filming, and that their footage can and has been used as evidence in criminal trials. Emails obtained by 404 Media also show that the robot food delivery company wanted to work more closely with the LAPD, which jumped at the opportunity.
Sensationalism at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a ridiculous summary of the article. It certainly is meant to conjure fears of an overbearing surveillance state. However, if you RTFA you'll see that the video footage the robot provided to LAPD was footage of two men trying to actually steal the robot itself while it was rolling down the sidewalk. It was not some unrelated crime the robot happened to capture.
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention that many police departments routinely ask people who have surveillance cameras installed at their businesses or residences let them look at it to see if a criminal can be identified. It would be highly unusual if they didn't!
Re: (Score:2)
Or ask people in the area if they saw anything. It would be highly unusual if they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Witnesses are comparatively less-reliable. They also don't actually record every last little detail for hours on end (cameras can, and often do).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is hilarious because a minimum wage night watchmen disempowered from doing anything more than politely asking you to leave will deter a lot more property crime than the best CCTV system.
CCTV is useful for after the fact investigations. For deterrence, not so much. I worked at place with recurring payroll fraud (people clocking their absent friends in and out) and the ANNOUNCED camera in PLAIN SIGHT over the time clock didn’t stop it. The felony arrest and prosecution of the perpetrators did,
Re: (Score:2)
You have evidence of fraudulent clock ins (There's no federal law that makes employee time theft illegal in the U.S. so the police aren't gonna do squat) and they were not fired? That's totally on your company and not the police.
Re:Sensationalism at its finest (Score:4)
It's felony theft above a certain threshold. I promise, the police did care, they just wanted to see it hit the felony threshold first. In my native State (New York) it's also falsification of business records and also becomes a felony in certain contexts. Ask the former POTUS, lol.
This was a government agency. It was ANNOUNCED that the camera was going in. It was ANNOUNCED that there would be a law enforcement referral if the fraudulent punches continued. People kept doing it anyway. That's on them. They weren't immediately fired because 1) It's a hassle to fire a classified civil servant, even after arrest they weren't "fired" until they were convicted/plead guilty (they did get suspended, obviously, but continued to draw pay until PTO was exhausted) and 2) The administration wanted to make an example out of someone.
The worst part is they were mostly 'gimmie' jobs. The one that sticks out in my mind, dude was a 2nd shift receptionist. His job was to "work" for five hours, during which time he averaged four phone calls and one walk-in. He was totally free to sit there for the majority of his shift and watch TV, surf Facebook, whatever, nobody cared. They did care when he wasn't even on the damn property! He had platinum plated health insurance, fully paid for, with a do nothing part time job and flushed it (and his right to vote or own firearms) down the drain just to watch TV on his couch instead of in the office. Smart decision!
One of the idiots involved was dating a friend of mine who also worked for the city. We both warned him on the down low it was coming and he needed to knock it off. His response to my warning was to ask if I could delete the footage. I kept that to myself, had I shared it, that would have been another deserved felony charge. He's lucky the cops and district attorney didn't ask me (or anyone else really) any questions, I wouldn't have lied if they had. I suspect they put in minimum effort because they had better things to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I learned within my first week working in physical security (we installed, maintained and programmed cameras, key cards, alarms, etc.) that the only value for CCTV was forensics after the fact. The British police, with access to over 2,000,000 camera feeds, announced a couple of years ago that their camera monitoring had stopped "dozens of crimes". Not hundreds, not even scores, dozens over a ten year period.
BTW folks, the wall full of screens that guard staff are attentively watching in the movies? They
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and the security guards who respond at a run, guns drawn, after a single alarm? That doesn't happen either.
Our last alarm was a stray cat that snuck into our warehouse and set off motion sensors, lol. I'm the one that got to respond to that too because I live the closest to that particular location. I made a cup of coffee first, got dressed, pulled up the footage to see what I was walking into, and 45 minutes later found enough fucks to drive my ass down to the warehouse and try to coax kitty out of her hiding spot.
Nobody takes security alarms seriously. Out of the hundreds of incident responses I've been di
Re: (Score:2)
What has helped in this department is AI. For example, on the security system at my last job, the guy at the desk had screens which would pop up and show a red rectangle if someone was standing in an area they shouldn't (bushes, emergency exit door), and at night, it would pop over to a screen if it detected a humanoid walking. With cars, there was a decent license plate reader that would sound an alert if someone's plates were on a blacklist. Having something AI based as something looking over the shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Witnesses are comparatively less-reliable. They also don't actually record every last little detail for hours on end (cameras can, and often do).
Not only that, but they are not real reliable in recounting what was seen vs. what they thought they saw.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also harder, but not impossible, for digital pictures to lie.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention that many police departments routinely ask people who have surveillance cameras installed at their businesses or residences let them look at it to see if a criminal can be identified. It would be highly unusual if they didn't!
Because you've got nothing to hide! You'd just let the police have a look around your home, no need for a warrant or anything! Only a criminal would deny the police access to their home or car!
Re: (Score:2)
The public street is not your private home. These things are on the street, where there is no expectation of privacy, many people already have cameras, hell, people have been demanding police and others get cameras installed to survey them.
Re: (Score:2)
"...people have been demanding police and others get cameras installed to survey them."
But the police cannot. You are conflating different things.
Yes, the public street is not your private home, but no, the police cannot blanket surveil people on the public street. However, the police can ask people for help, and they can decline or assist.
Re: (Score:2)
They can attempt to decline. But if they set up a camera then . . .
Re: (Score:2)
"...people have been demanding police and others get cameras installed to survey them."
But the police cannot. You are conflating different things.
Yes, the public street is not your private home, but no, the police cannot blanket surveil people on the public street. However, the police can ask people for help, and they can decline or assist.
If they decline they should immediately come under suspicion!
Re: (Score:2)
the police cannot blanket surveil people on the public street
Horseshit. You've obviously never attended a peaceful antiwar protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally it's in peoples interest to help solve crimes in their neighborhoods, yes. Crimes means someone's rights were in fact violated by the criminal, should the possibility of violation override the fact that an actual action took place? What does this line of thinking getting us?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you've got nothing to hide!
Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between broad police surveillance and police asking for a private video of a specific time and place.
I have security cameras on my home. One of them has a clear view of the street. The police once called me and asked me if I had a video of an hour when a burglar robbed a neighboring house.
Since I don't like thieves, I was happy to help.
Re: (Score:1)
Because you've got nothing to hide!
Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between broad police surveillance and police asking for a private video of a specific time and place.
I have security cameras on my home. One of them has a clear view of the street. The police once called me and asked me if I had a video of an hour when a burglar robbed a neighboring house.
Since I don't like thieves, I was happy to help.
Of course, so if the police asked to come in and check your home for stolen property, you'd be happy to let them in. You have nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
What does voluntarily sharing video of the street outside your house have to do with warrantless searches. Seems like they are very different beasts.
Re: (Score:2)
If you allow them to search, they don't NEED a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
So, just don't let them in the house while you check your camera footage. I wouldn't, and really don't understand why you assume that anyone would. What I'd do is have whoever wants to be the point of contact give me their business card and, if I turned up anything, email the footage. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you're not a Libertardian. I had one tell me that if the police see a stolen vehicle in his front yard that they had to get a search warrant to even go look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least those types make for some good YouTube videos. Especially their Sovereign Citizen cousins. I could watch people getting their car windows busted out and them getting arrested all day.
I can understand where the Sovereign Citizens are coming from though. In the USA, and many nation-states, the citizens are virtually treated like property or chattels of the state. This is kind of disgusting and should be resisted. Unfortunately, the Sovereign Citizens do so rather comically badly.
Re: (Score:2)
What does voluntarily sharing video of the street outside your house have to do with warrantless searches. Seems like they are very different beasts.
If you aren't a criminal you have nothing to hide.
You don't have anything to hide, do you? Failure to comply could be interpreted as admission of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
The police once called me and asked me if I had a video of an hour when a burglar robbed a neighboring house. ..I was happy to help.
vs
if the police asked to come in and check your home for stolen property, you'd be happy to let them in.
Two completely different things. I'm perfectly within my rights, and sanity, to cooperate with one request and happily decline the other. If they don't like that, they can go get a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that many police departments routinely ask people who have surveillance cameras installed at their businesses or residences let them look at it to see if a criminal can be identified.
We get these requests so often at work I'm on a first name basis with the cop whose job it is to ask for them. Terribly mundane all but one time, we have an office with a camera that has a view of a high traffic/high accident intersection. The one that wasn't mundane was a murder at the bar next door. Also the only time they wanted ALL our footage, not just adjacent to the incident, 15 terabyte and change upload to their Dropbox. I used it as a convenient excuse to test a new QoS configuration, lol, but
Re:Sensationalism at its finest (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we think this is the only case? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to bet the footage onboard any one of the myriad of cars with adaptive cruise control or backup camera is actually property of the car company and not the owner. Who is to say that the LAPD or any other police force has an agreement with Telsa, Ford, GM, Toyota ......
I for one hail our new surveillance state overlords :-) and am glad I drive a 20 year old mini truck with no AC and hand crank windows.
.
"That might have been the way to do things back in 1996 Sergeant John Spartan, but that's not how we do things in 2032."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Still not sure what to do with the three shells.
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Percent of Black Americans in the general U.S. population: 13%
Percent of people in prison or jail who are Black: 38%
Re: (Score:1)
How much higher could that 38% be if everyone were prosecuted equally? That seems to be the question here.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Who is prosecuted unequally, explain that.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the original poster, black people are being let off the hook, especially in states like California with a lot of progressive politicians and DAs.
Yet somehow, blacks in Cali make up 28% of the state prison population while only being 5% of the population statewide. Hmm! Must be racists.
Re: (Score:2)
There appears to be one last number missing from your formulation. It's almost like it's the most important one. The criminality rate of each racial group.
It's almost like blacks are a massive outlier in terms of criminality, standing far apart from everyone else. Must be racists at FBI doing the statistics. But we don't have to worry for much longer, as we now have a lot of blacks being booked at "white" as they're prosecuted for serious violent crimes of the kind that are hard to leave not prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
All while committing many times the crimes per capita than other groups than their current incarceration rate. They're factually under-incarcerated right now when the actual criminality rate, especially for serious crimes like murder and rape is taken into account. Looking at current FBI crime statistics and understand the concept of "per capita" is needed to reach this conclusion.
But for progressives per capita criminality numbers are irrelevant, and total equity in policing and prosecuting on group level
Re: (Score:3)
Like that recent Philadelphia Summer of Love. That poor influencer, caught up in bad surveillance while filming herself looting the apple store.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
You're a bigot and nobody cares what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, here you are.
Damn! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
everyone give a nod of sympathy to Greenbeard, would-be modern scourge of the seven seas.
Poor Greenbeard built a fully autonomous pirate ship, only to discover that it couldn't board other ships to loot them without a crew!
Re: (Score:2)
I would think the movement of the robots would scratch the vinyl.
Exactly what is being recorded, and for whom? (Score:2)
It's one thing for police to receive footage from the owner of the robot in relation to a crime committed (particularly against the robot). It's quite another for the robot to regularly supply footage unrelated to any crime in particular. Nobody seems to mind cameras recording crimes. It's everything else they record that is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at a loss as to why anyone would want to waste the time to review "footage unrelated to any crime in particular."
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody, said anything about reviewing it: But once the police have it, they can use it to 'prove' something is a crime, or obviously, as evidence of a crime.
Have you heard the news? The government wants Apple and Google to copy every photo and check it for evidence of sexual abuse or female nipples, especially against/of children. That's where this is heading. A few weeks ago, we literally had a US police department planning to spy on every outdoor party it could find. Before that, the UK government
Re: (Score:2)
You ever read 1984? Cameras everywhere. Why?
Food Delivery Robots ... (Score:3)
If they had to chose between video and donuts I think the decrease in crime will reflect in their weight gain.
Way to shill for shitass 404 media (Score:2)
Good(ish) (Score:2)