Public records requests are essential for establishing cases of malfeasance. However, with the rise of AI making giving every person the ability to make unlimited Public Records requests, the burden can be extreme.

I work for a major public university and we are absolutely drowning in PR requests. Anyone who does something that pisses off another person gets hit with a PR request... or 30. There are hundreds in queue and it's preventing actual work from being done. Where I live, there are not protections against malicious, repeat, or unjustifiable requests. There have been no adjustments for AI. There is no requirement to submit to a specific location or in a particular format.

Our campus certainly spends over $1M on PR responses given the time it takes for qualified people to seek and prepare the data and communication.

Of the MANY PR requests I've fulfilled, only two have been for decent reasons. The rest have been to satisfy vendettas and nothing has ever come of the data provided-- even for the good reasons.

How does this relate to the obvious issues around the use of Flock cameras? I'm willing to bet that the PR requests have gone something like this:

1. All records of all license plate scans since the inception of the program
2. All communication (digital, printed, or otherwise) from every employee discussing the system be it emails, text messages, written notes, etc.
3. All documents related to the purchase/contracting process that resulted in the Flock vendor being selected
4. All reports ... etc.

And it's very likely multiple requesters submitting requests for information in different formats. This takes worker time to aggregate.

Proper Implementation:

* Parking access systems: A TON of places, public and private.
* SFMTA's bus-mounted ALPR that automatically sends parking citations to vehicle owners whose vehicles are parked transit-only and bike-only lanes.
* Speed cameras: https://www.iihs.org/research-...
* Red light cameras: https://www.iihs.org/research-...

Trustworthy People: Literally almost everyone hired to operate the systems because checks and balances exist for most people with access. All we have to do is actually apply the existing laws to punish those who abuse the systems. Punishing COPS has always been difficult, of course, but the lack of effort to punish only makes the illegitimate actions welcoming.

ALPR cameras properly implemented and used by trustworthy people can do the public good. They can track stolen vehicles, follow hit-and-run suspects, help search for missing persons, and remove armed police from some enforcement actions (speeding, parking in transit lanes, etc.). The problem is when UNtrustworthy people have access to that data, be they demented police officers or ICE, the actual utility of the technology is overshadowed by the infringements by the shitheads.

Any ALPR vendor could have participated and so long as SFPD put the same boots-on-the-ground effort in, vehicle crime would have decreased. "Flock" the company did nothing particularly unique except share data with federal agencies, contrary to State law.

Why is the FTC being directed to do the investigation? They're supposed to focus on anti-trust and consumer protection.

The risk is the use of AI as a weapon. The FTC doesn't investigate that type of risk.

They're not losing interest, they're being TOLD not to go into coding because AI coding is taking off.

The destruction of rare books is the issue. I'm 100% down with scanning rare books, preserving IP rights for the IP holder, and digitally publishing the rare books for the masses. That makes sense.

But they're not doing that. They're literally destroying rare books simply to scan them FASTER, minimize expense, and feed the AI/LLM. That's not okay.

Yes, it's a trust issue. I'm glad he understands that, but I'm not hopeful that he or the industry knows what to do with that information.

Normal humans would work to earn trust by doing good things and not doing bad things. Corporatists, however, just know how to wage PR campaigns both overt and astroturf. That won't work with this issue.

Don't wrap the government, other companies, or the entire tech industry up in this. Let's focus on the AI industry and Anthropic. People are suspicious of the AI industry and Anthropic because:

1. Chips: AI industry chip demand is so extreme that it's sending tech advancement BACKWARD at the personal level. For what?
2. Electricity: AI industry is chewing up MASSIVE amounts of electricity (and exhausting huge GHG as a result) and affecting pricing and availability for neighbors. For what..?
3. Water: AI industry is literally thirsty because they want to use evaporative cooling. This is/will waste water... for what?
4. Enshittification: The AI industry has convinced less-tech-competent industries that today's LLMs are ready to replace humans. They're not ready, but they're replacing humans for work and their product is shit.
5. Obvious Abuses: From Flock to DOGE, AI has shown to be most immediately useful at exploiting legal shortcomings, the stupidity of the masses, and zero-day vulnerabilities.

Everything's getting worse for everyone except the rich and everyone's congratulating AI for the job well done. So ya... there's a trust issue and it's well-earned.

That's how lawsuits work. You got after one major target and the ruling results in mandates or requirements for entire industries.

No, that's not how it works everywhere.

It doesn't matter that it is new. It matters that people actually know about it now. Which they do. And they really, really don't like it for many very, very good reasons.

You can thank Meta for announcing to the world that this tech exists.

I disagree. There are mountains of information about a company from its many earnings calls, to open audited reports, historical stock prices, and effects of competition of anticipated buy/sell habits of other investors. This is "investment".

There is minuscule public (non-insider) information about medical trials. This is "gambling".

These two statements of yours seem to be at odds. The existence of gambling markets instigate change by those being gambled upon.

https://www.ncaa.org/media-cen...
https://www.espn.com/college-f...
https://www.ncaa.org/media-cen... ...

And on and on.

I honestly don't care about OnStar or "Super Cruise" subscriptions... and some level of subscription is reasonable.

OnStar probably has thousands of employees and significant hardware/infrastructure expenses. Those expenses likely go up annually. A subscription is reasonable for this service. Also, if you don't even want OnStar in the first place, don't get it.

Super Cruise is Chevy's hands-free-but-eyes-on-the-road cruise control (basically level 3 Autonomous Vehicle). That's an extremely complex system requiring consistent and on-going software updates and backend development. I think it would be cool to have one for a month or so... or maybe to help take the edge off of a very long drive, but I don't want to pay the lifetime expense of it upfront as part of my automobile purchase unless I plan to use it. Again, a subscription here seems rational.

Because comparably few people actually have the time to figure out what their TV (or the TVs from other brands) are doing aside from displaying video and emitting audio.

I give it no more than 2 weeks before it becomes common knowledge that LG is worse than Samsung. Not only do their newer computer monitors automatically install adware on your computer without your permission or notice, but not their smartTVs will stop allowing you access to apps if you use a proxy in your own damn house and on your own damn network.

How financially desperate must they be?

Ya, this is just awfulizing repeating an online mantra. To be fair, it CAN be like that in a non-union, private company *especially*, if you're not a particularly valued worker. But if you work in the public sphere (for a city, county, state, federal government, or public school), it's much, much better because those orgs are MUCH more risk averse.