Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Flock

stopflock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#61

Post by tptacek »

aldebran wrote: post #58
scarmig wrote: post #32

Although I oppose the surveillance state, it's important to understand the motivations and incentives involved in the move toward Flock (and its eventual successors); until those are resolved, governments are going to be implementing Flock style programs with relatively tepid opposition. Police departments are seriously understaffed in many major cities, and officers are much less efficient than they used to be. This…

Police departments aren’t understaffed. It’s a priority problem not a lack of resources problem. I live in a tech heavy, wealthy city. It’s small. No violent crime. Barely any crime at all. There’s occasional break ins and car break ins. When this happens it’s a big deal. We had one last year. Everyone around has cameras. The cops refused to do anything about it. They refused to get recordings. The neighbor went door…

I agree that police department staffing is less of a real issue than people claim it is, and that many departments have target staffing levels that are artificially elevated. But I'm struck by your comment about cops "hiding behind bushes to ticket people going 5 over", because in the ultra-ultra-progressive inner-ring Chicago suburb in which I live, one of the chief complaints about policing over the last couple years has been the lack of traffic enforcement.

Re: Stop Flock

#62

Post by tptacek »

jedberg wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entities holding the information here are literally police departments. The information itself is evidence, used in active criminal investigations. It's good to want things, though.

I know, that's why I said "including law enforcement" :)

So we're clear, you believe there should be a law that, when a police department collects information about you during a criminal investigation, they should notify you directly that they've done so?

Re: Stop Flock

#63

Post by daxaxelrod »

mike_d wrote: post #38

The "Take Action" section is missing the most obvious solution. Everyone just goes and takes down a camera. We as a society do not consent to this use of public space and simply have a national "Take out the trash day." There is no way Flock could practically ramp up production or manpower to replace the entire fleet before failing to meet contractual requirements with their customers that keep money flowing in.

Who are you to speak on behalf of society? Wouldn't society also be better off if those who stole your car got caught?

Further, I'm not sure why there is an expectation of privacy in public places. You don't have to consent to being filmed when you're walking down a public sidewalk.

Re: Stop Flock

#64

Post by otterley »

Why do people consistently and falsely believe that they have privacy in public settings? You are literally out in public. If you don't want your behavior in public to be observed, then either don't behave in such a way that you wouldn't want observed, or stay home.

UPDATE: don't conflate stalking with observation. These are not the same. You can observe, but you cannot intimidate.

Re: Stop Flock

#65

Post by the_doctah »

defrosting wrote: post #54
the_doctah wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever made that decision should be held liable.

Correct, whoever made the decision to create ICE, as it became a security risk that lead to deaths. Glad that's what you said, and no other valid interpretation.

Yes, let's have no federal immigration enforcement entity in this country, novel idea.

Re: Stop Flock

#66

Post by Xcelerate »

jedberg wrote: post #27

We need a law that says if you hold any data about a person, they must be notified when anyone accesses it, including law enforcement. I used to work in criminal investigations. I understand how this might make investigation of real crime more difficult. But so does the fact that you need a warrant to enter someone's home, and yet we manage to investigate crime anyway. Your data should be an extension of your home, e…

Is there not some concept that utilizes cryptography in a way such that information about people is accessible, but if it's accessed, then the access request is added to a ledger (akin to blockchain) such that who made the access, when, and about whom becomes provably public knowledge?

Re: Stop Flock

#67

Post by lesuorac »

the_doctah wrote: post #65
defrosting wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, whoever made the decision to create ICE, as it became a security risk that lead to deaths. Glad that's what you said, and no other valid interpretation.

Yes, let's have no federal immigration enforcement entity in this country, novel idea.

Well, while I don't know you personally. Most working people are older than ICE.

It's actually a relatively new agency and clearly not effective.

Re: Stop Flock

#68

Post by otterley »

jedberg wrote: post #27

We need a law that says if you hold any data about a person, they must be notified when anyone accesses it, including law enforcement. I used to work in criminal investigations. I understand how this might make investigation of real crime more difficult. But so does the fact that you need a warrant to enter someone's home, and yet we manage to investigate crime anyway. Your data should be an extension of your home, e…

> Your data should be an extension of your home, even if it's held by another company.

Nice idea, but at least in the U.S. (with the lone exception of LE obtaining cell phone location records), courts have consistently held that if you give your data to someone else, you are no longer entitled to an expectation of privacy in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

If you want your data to be considered an extension of your home, at least for now, keep it at home.

Re: Stop Flock

#69

Post by themafia »

otterley wrote: post #64

Why do people consistently and falsely believe that they have privacy in public settings? You are literally out in public. If you don't want your behavior in public to be observed, then either don't behave in such a way that you wouldn't want observed, or stay home. UPDATE: don't conflate stalking with observation. These are not the same. You can observe, but you cannot intimidate.

Would you mind if I parked near your house, such that every morning, when you drove past, I could follow you. To work, to the store, to the gym, you know, wherever.

Then on the way home I'll park where I left off. If anyone asks me I'll them everything I know about you. It's "public" information after all.

Re: Stop Flock

#70

Post by SecretDreams »

otterley wrote: post #64

Why do people consistently and falsely believe that they have privacy in public settings? You are literally out in public. If you don't want your behavior in public to be observed, then either don't behave in such a way that you wouldn't want observed, or stay home. UPDATE: don't conflate stalking with observation. These are not the same. You can observe, but you cannot intimidate.

So you'd be cool with us crowdsourcing a film crew to follow you and your family around in public at all times?
Post reply on HN