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

131–140 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#131

Post by tptacek »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #130
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.

The information is not in any way restricted to use in active criminal investigations, and further, has been found to frequently be used for a variety of other purposes. It's a bit like saying pornography is used in the study of human anatomy.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about the legislation 'jedberg proposed.

Re: Stop Flock

#132

Post by stopachka »

I am surprised how overwhelmingly negative the comments are here. I would have expected at least a few voices defending Flock.

I'll step in and add a voice. Ultimately, Flock is solving a real problem with crime. This is why police departments when them.

Stopping Flock doesn't address the need that got police departments to use them. If you want to "stop flock", you need to address that need better.

Re: Stop Flock

#133

Post by ryanjshaw »

stopachka wrote: post #132

I am surprised how overwhelmingly negative the comments are here. I would have expected at least a few voices defending Flock. I'll step in and add a voice. Ultimately, Flock is solving a real problem with crime. This is why police departments when them. Stopping Flock doesn't address the need that got police departments to use them. If you want to "stop flock", you need to address that need better.

I am not American, but in my extremely dangerous country we have many privately-operated cameras and I don’t know a single person who is against them. We also have strict privacy laws.

So I was disappointed by what felt like very weak arguments in the article. Basically seems to come down it “it can be abused”. But many things can be abused. The solution is to fix the abuse problem.

I’d like to hear stronger arguments against these devices, so that I’m better informed locally.

Re: Stop Flock

#134

Post by wraptile »

jimmar wrote: post #7

I followed the shooting at Brown University last year very closely. Brown's leadership was heavily criticized for having camera blind spots and not being able to track the shooter's exact movements through campus. I can understand why people with stewardship over the safety of their students/customers/constituents would make decisions to err on the side of tracking. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it…

I recently did a dive into ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder i.e. sociopaths) and unsurprisingly most what's stopping them from outright killing people is the likelihood that they'd be caught. So one thing is clear is that as long as we have sociopaths and the like who treat crime purely as value/risk proposition some sort of powerful detective tooling will always be necessary.

Unfortunately automated surveillance is considered the best detective tool we have but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case with public self surveillance and good ol' park a policeman box in every neighborhood seems to outperform automated surveillance. So there's much more to this than "surveillance is bad or good" discussions we have right now.

Re: Stop Flock

#135

Post by intended »

stevemk14ebr wrote: post #18
bmitch3020 wrote: post #10

I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste. Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong…

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

A significant chunk of the infrastructure that farms data is now from private organizations, who sell that information because it is a source of revenue.

Government is the bogeyman we are afraid of, but ad tech is doing the actual heavy lifting.

Re: Stop Flock

#136

Post by atq2119 »

tptacek wrote: post #62
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It does make sense. Police are absolutely not beyond reproach, and there's screwups all the time. They need to be held to a high standard.

It's also easy to imagine reasonable compromises, like a time delay where they only have to report after e.g. 48 hours, and allowing a system whereby a judge can issue a warrant to extend that delay.

Re: Stop Flock

#137

Post by nandomrumber »

caconym_ wrote: post #24
stevemk14ebr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

Honestly it should probably just be illegal for anyone, private or public, to engage in mass surveillance (or "data gathering", whatever) of anybody who didn't expressly consent to it. As long as the data exist, they will be abused.

But I did expressly consent.

When I installed the SoundCloud app and it told me by continuing I agree to them sharing my data with their 954 partners.[1]

1. I’m not even joining. When I mostly recently installed the SoundCloud app - for the first time on a new device, that’s what’s it said: 954 partners. How can anyone reasonably understand what it is their agreeing to in that scenario.

Re: Stop Flock

#138

Post by intended »

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.

Agreed. In the end the results and outcomes are what matter.

I really wish we had a more robust information environment where we could discuss things with more nuance.

Re: Stop Flock

#139

Post by Finbarr »

stopachka wrote: post #132

I am surprised how overwhelmingly negative the comments are here. I would have expected at least a few voices defending Flock. I'll step in and add a voice. Ultimately, Flock is solving a real problem with crime. This is why police departments when them. Stopping Flock doesn't address the need that got police departments to use them. If you want to "stop flock", you need to address that need better.

Agreed. Flock has been a key contributor in solving numerous crimes. I'm happy for Flock to be in my county and would like the police to have more access to technology like this, not less.

Re: Stop Flock

#140

Post by vazgriz »

tptacek wrote: post #62
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's more or less what a search warrant is, so yes.
Post reply on HN