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

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#91

Post by assimpleaspossi »

willis936 wrote: post #89
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Let's restrict police and take away every possible tool they can use to solve and fight crime. Not all criminals are bad criminals. They don't use Flock to spy on their ex-girlfriends but every cop in America has done it. At least according to the internet which knows everything.

Don't misrepresent what others say. The 4th amendment should not be violated. I can only interpret your response as "the 4th amendment should be violated".

Then you would be wrong. I'm pointing out the internet's liberal obsession with anti-police and, seemingly, pro-criminal activity. The internet likes to find fault with the police while dismissing or ignoring criminal activity. It's a horror I cannot understand. It's pure insanity.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#92

Post by willis936 »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #91
willis936 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't misrepresent what others say. The 4th amendment should not be violated. I can only interpret your response as "the 4th amendment should be violated".

Then you would be wrong. I'm pointing out the internet's liberal obsession with anti-police and, seemingly, pro-criminal activity. The internet likes to find fault with the police while dismissing or ignoring criminal activity. It's a horror I cannot understand. It's pure insanity.

Okay, then pontificate that as a top level comment. Responding to someone saying the 4th amendment should not be circumvented with a refute is a statement about the 4th amendment, not some imagined counter party.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#93

Post by Manuel_D »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #85
Manuel_D wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.

I feel like you haven't properly thought this through. Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? More generally you're confidently making wild extrapolations from the current very limited case law without regard for…

> Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person.

It's an encrypted broadcast, not a public broadcast. This is why the police needed to ask the mobile service providers for this data. It is not public.

> For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't?

The data is not broadly analogous. One is encrypted radio traffic. The other is unencrypted, and you can record it yourself with a pen, paper, and the Mk I eyeball. This is why the "plain view" doctrine applies.

Again, the courts have already ruled on the use of ALPRs. The defense tried to use US vs Carpenter in US vs Yang, and the courts did not accept that argument that ALPRs are analogous to cell phone location data.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#94

Post by assimpleaspossi »

willis936 wrote: post #92
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you would be wrong. I'm pointing out the internet's liberal obsession with anti-police and, seemingly, pro-criminal activity. The internet likes to find fault with the police while dismissing or ignoring criminal activity. It's a horror I cannot understand. It's pure insanity.

Okay, then pontificate that as a top level comment. Responding to someone saying the 4th amendment should not be circumvented with a refute is a statement about the 4th amendment, not some imagined counter party.

This whole thread represents the imaginary of the internet and it makes me sick. I have to get off the internet. I've spent too much time with it lately.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#95

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #90
Manuel_D wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd arrest the person who walked out of the lot with your stolen luggage. > Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, co…

[flagged]

Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would automated license plate readers somehow de-anonymize individual ballots? Please do explain what you meant by that.

And do explain the "idiocy" of the rest of my comment. Do you actually dispute anything I wrote? Do you think that law enforcement weren't monitoring groups like the Proud Boys, Nation of Islam, militia organizations, etc. before Flock came around?

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#96

Post by nkrisc »

> He characterizes the behavior as rare. He simultaneously identifies it as the most common form of abuse. The tension between those two statements is the problem Flock has left unaddressed.

I don’t see how there’s any tension between these statements. The overall occurrence of abuse can be rare while the most common form of the abuse that does occur is of officers tracking people they know.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#97

Post by downrightmike »

Manuel_D wrote: post #5
willis936 wrote: post #4

Check your town's website for correspondence with your state's chapter of the ACLU in regards to Flock cameras. If your police chief (not an elected official) is installing them then contact your local ACLU chapter about it. These are 4th amendment violations.

To the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citizens need authorization to film people in public. Many Flock cameras are also privately owned, too.

The government may not purchase services for acts it is not allowed to do itself: Pinkerton Act.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#99

Post by parl_match »

xnx wrote: post #67

This problem is 99% cops and 1% flock.

verkada (a building access systems company), had multiple incidents of stalking of employees by other employees, using their own installation in their own hq

none of them were cops

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#100

Post by defen »

Gigachad wrote: post #78
dw_arthur wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of crime is committed by a relatively small number of individuals. If citizens feel crime is out of control they need to vote in politicians and judges who sentence repeat offenders to long sentences or involuntary commitment.

Long sentences are far less effective than reliable enforcement. Something that seems to be very true in practice. If you steal or vandalise something in China, there is an extremely high chance you will get caught, you won't get a massive penalty, but it will be enough to cover the damages + some. If you for example knew that stealing had a penalty of 100% of the item value + 10% fine, with a 100% chance of getting…

How does that work when you don't have enough assets to cover the cost of the thing you broke or stole?
Post reply on HN