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

I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

honeypot.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 276 posts

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#241

Post by a-posteriori »

tedggh wrote: post #210

“United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)

I am against Flock as a company.

Are they "installing a Global Positioning (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicles movement"? No.

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#242

Post by gguncth »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #183
gguncth wrote: post #172

It’s fascinating how America could completely get rid of Flock cameras by sending criminals to prison and leaving them there, but we won’t do that so we have these endless arguments about these cameras.

I'm trying to understand the argument here. Are you saying that never releasing convicted criminals would completely eliminate crime? That doesn't seem correct, even leaving aside the obvious moral issues with that.

Not never releasing convicted criminals, but 1) not letting any crime go without at least 1 day in jail 2) doubling the penalty on each successive offense would incapacitate a huge number of serial offenders

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#243

Post by wavefunction »

ldoughty wrote: post #24
fudgy73 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK Flock owns the cameras and leases them out [0]. [0] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-does-my-neighb...

But the data collected is property of the government and flock is not allowed to use that data for additional business gain (according to their statements)... So they can't sell the fact that you're at Target at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday to anybody... Nor build profiles to sell to advertisers... And if that's the case that's very similar to cloud storage vendors. If I access hacker news, and the record of my visit is sto…

I assume they are building "meta-data" profiles of people based on the data they say they can't use directly. That seems like an easy work-around that satisfies the lip-service they've given to the issue.

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#244

Post by tptacek »

windexh8er wrote: post #240
tptacek wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's the municipality holding the data it's even less an issue! Municipalities are exempt from CCPA!

They aren't. Flock is, so are they? Also, the state I live in has a GDPA that would override CCPA, so it's not exactly that cut and dry as you very well know. The Ring example is garbage. You paid for it and it's on your property. Nothing remotely similar. I guess then it's OK for Flock to be required installed on your mobile device so they can check your geo history for the last hour and that you don't match the pro…

I've lost track of what you're talking about. Flock cameras are installed by municipalities. They're physical devices. Nobody is required to have "Flock" installed on their mobile device. That's not a thing.

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#245

Post by rkomorn »

a-posteriori wrote: post #241
tedggh wrote: post #210

“United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)

I am against Flock as a company. Are they "installing a Global Positioning (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicles movement"? No.

If they have sufficient camera coverage to achieve similar tracking of a vehicle within a certain area, I'd say it becomes a distinction without a difference (which I'm guessing is along GP's point).

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#247

Post by gorgoiler »

ldoughty wrote: post #24
fudgy73 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK Flock owns the cameras and leases them out [0]. [0] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-does-my-neighb...

But the data collected is property of the government and flock is not allowed to use that data for additional business gain (according to their statements)... So they can't sell the fact that you're at Target at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday to anybody... Nor build profiles to sell to advertisers... And if that's the case that's very similar to cloud storage vendors. If I access hacker news, and the record of my visit is sto…

That’s a pretty compelling argument, but what if I went round to AWS’ house, peeked into their kitchen, and saw a crate of photos on their table with me in them?

I’d absolutely say:

“Hey, that’s me! Give me those right now!”

I’d also be pretty angry if they told me:

“Sorry we’re storing those for Corp Inc. Go ask them.”

To refute my own point though, this only sounds annoying because the data processor is being irritating by manually referring me to the data controller. In practice, it would be trivial for them to automatically forward communications between me and the controller.

That’s what feels is amiss with the top level article.

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#249

Post by deepsun »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #238
deepsun wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that, I'm pretty sure any company that has your PII is obliged to follow the law, regardless of their contracts with their customers/vendors. Law doesn't make you investigate who's the end customer for your data, only who has it. As for "subprocessor" -- it might as well be the case that both sides are subprocessors for each other, nothing wrong with that.

I don’t know this specific law, I just know how it works in the EU with the GDPR. Of course any company that has your PII has to follow the law, but it matters which entity is the one that has is the end customer for your data. They are the one that has to have a legal basis for even collecting that data and they are the one you as a use deal with. If they use a sub-contractor then that’s an internal matter for them…

All true, but if the third party receives a delete request from you, they have to oblige (and may notify the bank). Otherwise it would be very easy to circumvent the law by saying "oh we're just keeping it for another customer, we're going to send it to them next year maybe". And that customer will say they need it for another customer etc.

Privacy law (in your case GDPR) does not concern with who's customer. If a company processes PII -- they are subject to the privacy laws.

Re: I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program

#250

Post by jeroenhd »

SoftTalker wrote: post #57
inetknght wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I see a flash on a speed camera operated by a business on behalf of a police department, your argument states I should be able to use CCPA to force the business to delete my picture and the record of me speeding If I can get the request to them before the police can file with the court and request that data as evidence. Sounds reasonable to me. If the police want to put up a camera, then the police should put up…

So police departments should have to develop and host all their administrative software also? I think we can all see why that would be a terrible idea. Police are like any other government agency or business in that they contract with the private sector for a variety of services that are not in their area of expertise.

In other countries, police contract companies to develop software and run and manage the software themselves. Putting up a continental drag net to sell to government agencies is something I've only heard of from the US.

Nobody is saying cops should be writing software, but Flock shouldn't have access to the data and analysis tools it has right now. If American police can afford to be armed similarly to a small army, surely they can pay to run a couple of servers in a basement somewhere.

I'm surprised the USA is letting this happen given the culture of individual freedom that seems to have traditionally driven American laws.

Post reply on HN