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

211–220 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#211

Post by Joker_vD »

dnnddidiej wrote: post #206
Joker_vD wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. Which is why "we don't serve patrons without shoes and pants" policy is unconstitutional, yeah. If you don't want to agree to a business's demands — you're welcome to not deal with them and look for an alternative. All the altern…

Yes please. Your shaming didn't work. Free markets centre of gravity is biased towards capital and land owners. We need people power to balamce it back. Something we poor people are all enjoying now (pssst me and you are poor.... kings and barons are the few and rich)

I really need to start putting /s at the ends of my comments where I merely restate the currently adopted legal theory/framework in non-sugar-coated terms, don't I? The whole liberal movement has its roots in the merchants' and industrialists' desire of having as little interference from the aristocracy-heavy governments of the yore, and it really shows even to this day.

Re: Stop Flock

#212

Post by alistairSH »

Joker_vD wrote: post #208
LadyCailin wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with this is that I, at least, am trying to live in a society. And society has both rights and responsibilities. Sometimes you are forced to do things, or don’t do things, contrary to your desires. Every freedom has two sides, you can’t ignore the fact that increasing some freedoms for one decreases other freedoms for others. The shirt and shoes example is a great example in fact that illustrates the poin…

> You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes Okay, I am gonna be 100% serious here: you absolutely should have such a freedom. Just as loitering or jaywalking being a crime is inherently totalitarian, what the hell.

In this case, unlimited means literally everywhere.

You do have the right to go barefoot in your own home. And in true public spaces.

But, a property owner can require shoes. Do I care if somebody is barefoot in the local grocer? No, not really. But, the proprietor might because they want to limit their liability (should something fall on your foot, a cart run it over, or a loose tack/nail somehow land in an aisle, etc).

Re: Stop Flock

#213

Post by Tangurena2 »

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…

One simple remedy would be to make companies (that collect such private data) and their directors/executives jointly & severally liable[0] for any identity theft. It should come with "forever" liability equivalent to SuperFund sites[1]

Notes:

0 - Financial penalties would not be limited to "your share" of the penalty. If you have money, and the other parties don't, the plaintiffs can collect from whichever defendant has money.

1 - Everyone who ever owned the site with the toxic waste is liable for the cleanup. This is why when a gas station is sold (in the US), all of the fuel tanks are dug up and replaced - this way, none of the future leakage can be attributed to the previous owners.

Re: Stop Flock

#214

Post by the_other »

01100011 wrote: post #147
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 no…

It’s easier to consider responses or solutions to specific problems, rather than to solve for a broad, general principle. You can see this in many areas of life. Solving for general principles requires group effort (usually); you can get buy-in from individuals if you csn focus them on specific cases or subsets. So the Floxk fetish is reasonable at this point, IMO.

There’s also nothing inherently wrong with carrying sensors in your pocket. The “wrong” is in the providers/manufacturers exploiting the position they put themselves in. Managing data is hard, and most people don’t want to do the necessary work most of the time, so the providers/manufacturers offer to do that for their users/customers. However, they also exploit their csretaker position by tresting the data like they own it too, and extracting profit.

If the solutions to the Flock problems could be framed such that other providers/manufacturers had to build systems that were “local first” or “private by default” (as in pre-internet home computing plus explicit, finegrained shsring consents), then it would also be fine to carry sensors. I want my fitness tracker and GPS. I just don’t want the data it generates used to build advertising profiles on me such that ads (and government mass surveillance dragnets) can follow my every other move.

Re: Stop Flock

#215

Post by itomato »

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…

Without their unique business model, what is the company? The product?

What is the addressable market for ubiquitous public surveillance devices? Who is the customer?

Re: Stop Flock

#217

Post by ethbr1 »

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.

> How is that achievable?

The core ill is aggregated data, because that's what allows the mass in surveillance, data mining, etc.

The collection actions are almost immaterial. Without persistence they must be re-performed for each request, which naturally provides a throughput bottleneck and makes "for everyone" untenable.

If we agree the aggregated data at rest is the problem, then addressing it would look like this:

1. Classify all data holders at scale into a regulated group

2. Apply initial regulations

   - To respond to queries for copies of personal data held
   - To update data or be liable in court for failing to do so
   - To validate counterparties apply basic security due diligence before transferring data (or the transferer also faces liability)
   - To maintain a *full* chain of custody of data (from originator through every intermediate party to holder) so that leaks / misuse can be traced
   - To file yearly update on the types, amount of data, and counterparties it was transferred to with the federal government that are made public
The initial impediment to regulatory action is Google, Meta, Equifax, etc. saying "This problem is too complex and you don't understand it."

It's not. But the first step is classifying and documenting the problem.

Re: Stop Flock

#218

Post by Tangurena2 »

nullc wrote: post #60
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.

They're also one and the same generally-- at least if the stalker has money or the right friends most kinds of law enforcement access means stalker access. It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker, and there are so many people that work in law enforcement that bribing, impersonating, or persuading your way to access is not that big a deal. Not to mention that enabled stalkers can just file a fe…

> It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker

This was one of the motivations for passage of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994. Nowadays, officers need a legitimate reason to run a plate - unless the patrol car is fitted with automatic cameras[1] that look up every plate of every car they drive past.

> The Virginia state police used license plate readers to track people’s attendance at political events; > The New York Police Department used license plate readers to keep track of who visited certain places of worship, and how often;

> Despite all this surveillance, ALPR technology has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable; like other police technologies, ALPRs can and do make mistakes.[2]

Generally, court decisions have held that you have zero expectation of privacy when you are in public spaces. Current license plate standards[3] aim for plates that are not cluttered and are easily read by the human eyeball, despite being wrapped with license plate frames (which usually make the state hard/impossible to read which is the most common failure mode for ANLR[4]). If the reflectivity material (traditionally called "ScotchLite"[5]) is worn out (or defaced), most states require the plate to be replaced.

Notes:

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_... Prior to passage, a slang term for running/looking up the plate/registration of a car with a pretty woman driver was "running a date".

1 - https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-rea...

2 - https://www.aclum.org/publications/what-you-need-know-about-...

3 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/646bcc8a-219b-47d8-b5cd-72624...

4 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/0063bf88-cb44-4ab9-90b6-200c8...

5 - https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-u...

Disclaimers:

I used to work for my state's motor vehicle department and had database/developer access to driving licenses and motor vehicle registration records.

I graduated from a police academy when I was a youngster.*

Re: Stop Flock

#219

Post by Tangurena2 »

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…

PATRIOT Act & Bank Secrecy laws make it illegal to notify a person that they are being investigated, or that they are a subject in an investigation.

Re: Stop Flock

#220

Post by LurkandComment »

What might be more productive is to suggest legal ways law enforcement can prevent and enforce the problems this was designed to stop. It will help you see where the laws are limited, what needs to be updated so you can balance the risk of privacy vs. the need to enforce laws (or the need for new laws all together). Right now we're osilcating between gaps criminals exploit and infringing on fundemental privacy rights.
Post reply on HN