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

141–150 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#141

Post by thaumaturgy »

tptacek wrote: post #131
thaumaturgy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

~jedberg is talking about a hypothetical law that would apply to ALPR data. In reply, you said "The information itself is evidence, used in active criminal investigations." ("The information" here referring to ALPR data.) (You also said, "The entities holding the information here are literally police departments.", but I don't see that that's relevant unless we choose to believe that police departments are more deserving of public trust by default than any other organization.)

I was replying to the "used in active criminal investigations" part. Yes, the ALPR data managed by Flock is sometimes used in active criminal investigations. However, it's also used for many other things.

The many other things that it's used for supports ~jedberg's argument.

Re: Stop Flock

#143

Post by BrenBarn »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #80
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.

The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.

Re: Stop Flock

#144

Post by buzer »

jojobas wrote: post #119
RHSeeger wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

How is that achievable? PIs can legally do it. Random people can keep tabs on you and exchange gossip. It's the sudden scale and low cost that doesn't sit well with freedom to not be tracked in public 24/7 we took for granted.

If PIs can "legally" do it then it sounds like there is a law which allows them to do it. That law can be revoked (unless the power comes from Constitution which would make it effectively impossible to revoke).

Note that PIs are effectively illegal under GDPR by default. They would generally need to provide Article 13 notice, i.e. you would become aware of them unless they were just asking around without actually following you. Member states can make them legal though (via Article 23) and likely in many cases they have done so.

Re: Stop Flock

#145

Post by saghm »

Finbarr wrote: post #139
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.

Does your country also have a recurring problem of police shooting unarmed citizens? If not, it probably helps to understand the dynamics of why the police are not widely trusted here

Re: Stop Flock

#146

Post by Terr_ »

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.

Necessary, but not sufficient.

Even if we somehow, perhaps via magic genie-wish, made the government totally disinterested... these systems would still enable dystopian levels of private surveillance and manipulation.

Re: Stop Flock

#147

Post by 01100011 »

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…

There is a weird fetish with Flock right now. Privacy advocates have been screaming at the public for 25 years now and suddenly the public cares and is obsessed with this one very specific company.

Nevermind license plate readers have been collecting your data for decades. Nevermind you literally carry a tracking device on your person, likely 24/7.

I mean, cool, stop Flock, but don't stop there. Flock is very much not the final boss in this fight. The cynic in me says we will all get bored once Flock is off the radar though.

Re: Stop Flock

#148

Post by saghm »

renewiltord wrote: post #34
rexpop wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is not a king.

I didn’t say anyone was a king. I was just talking about troublesome priests.

And you're conveniently unaware of the historical context of the origin of that phrase too, if we're to take you literally, since you seem to entirely misunderstand how the whole reason it was problematic was due to the inherent power dynamics

Re: Stop Flock

#149

Post by protocolture »

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.

There are literally only 2 options.

1. Have an enforcement agency going around killing people, and locking people up who have valid reason to exist in country waiting for status updates.

OR

2. Complete anarchy and chaos, monkeys flying planes, elephants driving taxis, dogs marrying cats.

Actually you know what, I reckon give the elephants a go.

Re: Stop Flock

#150

Post by whilenot-dev »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #133
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 argument…

> Basically seems to come down it “it can be abused”. But many things can be abused.

This isn't your life pro tip to get you some additional 20% discount on the next McDonald's order, or some ethical kind of abuse that gets you your needed treatment, because the healthcare system is just too nonexistent to care, though.

Any criticism against the use of surveillance technology needs to resort to the rhetoric of COULD, because any other choice of words would put the final nail in any surveillance companies' coffin, with evidence from either whistleblowers or circumvented security issues.

It's certainly hard to look behind the curtains - fair, but in a world where the top companies are selling advertisements by accumulating and correlating large-scale tracking information from every person on earth, regardless whether they're users of the products or not, it should be much harder to shrug off such a possibility as dystopian nonsense than to see it as the fucked up reality (circumvention of fundamental rights included) that it is.

Post reply on HN