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

71–80 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#71

Post by lesuorac »

tptacek wrote: post #61
aldebran wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yea…

> one of the chief complaints about policing over the last couple years has been the lack of traffic enforcement.

Which traffic enforcement though?

I really do not like the fact that lefts on red are not enforced. I have numerous times seen people run a red-red light infront of a cop car with no enforcement.

That said, people going 35 in a 30? Like I care. People weaving in between lanes? Yeah that seems much more dangerous.

Re: Stop Flock

#72

Post by engineer_22 »

the_doctah wrote: post #51
sfblah wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With most of these things, people are against state power until they are victimized. It’s a common pattern.

People hate cops until they need one

Police work for the State. The State orders them to work for the Public when it interests the State. Intervening in violent crime and property crime can be seen, cynically, as a PR move.

To be beholden to the State for justice and protection is fine when the State is beholden to the Public for their consent. Today, in the West, the Public has been so thoroughly disarmed, and /disrobed/, that consent is a formality, consent can no longer be withheld.

Look no further than Flock and FISA for the ongoing crisis of consent.

When cops are released from the State apparatus, they'll be given the respect and admiration they deserve. Until then, it's difficult to separate them from their incentive structure.

Re: Stop Flock

#73

Post by otterley »

themafia wrote: post #69
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.

Should I be concerned that you're stalking me, or that you know this information? The former is illegal, the latter is not.

Re: Stop Flock

#74

Post by otterley »

SecretDreams wrote: post #70
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?

Should I be concerned that you're stalking me, or that you know this information? The former is illegal, the latter is not.

Re: Stop Flock

#75

Post by themafia »

mcmcmc wrote: post #20
khuston wrote: post #13

I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them.

Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper too since people would drive more safely, and the cost of investigations and arbitration drops down with readily available video evidence.

Just make quotas illegal. Make enforcing them a felony for command staff. Lock up body worn camera videos so they can't be used for "performance review." That footage belongs to the public, for legal purposes, it shouldn't be a "tool" outside of that.

More importantly, can I borrow you car? I have some, uh, stuff, to go do.

Re: Stop Flock

#76

Post by ianpenney »

Obligatory reference to PIPEDA and GDPR.

Edit: not a low effort comment. This is something you should all read and demand the same of. I consternated on how not to call your regime moronic. It _is_ moronic that you don’t have these basic protections and we keep having to listen to you all whine about that.

Re: Stop Flock

#77

Post by themafia »

otterley wrote: post #73
themafia wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Should I be concerned that you're stalking me, or that you know this information? The former is illegal, the latter is not.

Flock can alert when any specific car drives by. No warrant is required to use this feature.

So, I won't follow you, but when you _do_ leave, I'm going to call some people to let them know that happened. Still cool?

Re: Stop Flock

#78

Post by otterley »

themafia wrote: post #77
otterley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I be concerned that you're stalking me, or that you know this information? The former is illegal, the latter is not.

Flock can alert when any specific car drives by. No warrant is required to use this feature. So, I won't follow you, but when you _do_ leave, I'm going to call some people to let them know that happened. Still cool?

Eat your heart out. It's also a completely legitimate law enforcement technique.

Re: Stop Flock

#79

Post by SecretDreams »

otterley wrote: post #74
SecretDreams wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Should I be concerned that you're stalking me, or that you know this information? The former is illegal, the latter is not.

What's the difference in outcome between passive stalking by having sufficient cameras to capture everyone's actions at all times and active stalking with a film crew?

Re: Stop Flock

#80

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

khuston wrote: post #13

I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them.

Mass surveillance is by definition oppressive. I think you mean to say you're in favor of targeted surveillance, targeted at criminals, who are on roadways. This is the distinction that's getting lost.

Give me a database of everywhere you have ever driven, and I will find multiple ways to make you look like a criminal.

Post reply on HN