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

131–140 of 382 posts

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

#131

Post by superultra »

wil421 wrote: post #71
Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real. My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do. I’m 100% sold on the results.

So, ends justifies the means. Got it.

I guess I’m old enough to remember when 99.9% of us on hacker news were…well, hackers. We valued privacy and freedom over surveillance and “results.”

I miss those days.

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

#132

Post by chaps »

Jzush wrote: post #127

Not sure how much warrants are going to help when a judge will see a stack of requests from a police chief and just rubber stamp them all without looking. This is already a problem in places where warrants are required.

With a search warrant, I can submit FOIA requests or go to the courthouse.

With flock searches, I (usually) can't because Illinois law exempts ALPR records. Here's the most egregious example I've seen: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/waukegan-11153/flock-safety-alp...

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

#133

Post by glitcher »

nkrisc wrote: post #96

> 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.

Rare in comparison to what, the total number of searches across the platform?

But even that is the wrong focus. One could make the same case for rejecting police body cams because incidents of police abuse are rare, relatively speaking.

The real issue is that the platform isn't completely locked down by default with strict access control grants, monitoring, auditing, etc. Shoot I have way less access at my work to data and systems which do not have that level of sensitivity and have to go through multiple approval steps to be granted anything new.

But I guess those things don't help the sales pitches. To be fair policing the police isn't flock's job and doesn't make them money. Laws and regulations are the only real vehicles of change.

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

#134

Post by SapporoChris »

normalaccess wrote: post #108

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu Privacy protects personal dignity, not just illicit behavior. We close bathroom doors, keep journals, and have intimate conversations not because we are breaking the law, but because we value personal modesty and boundaries. We are quickly approaching a time when we are al…

I do not disagree with the intentions of the quote, however it is disputed.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed

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

#135

Post by cogman10 »

asveikau wrote: post #34
Manuel_D wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business. The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a proposal?

What if what if what if? That whole premise of "what if lots of crime happens" -- already false. Did you know that most places in America are at historically low crime rates in most of our lifetimes? It is garbage to say this needs deep societal focus right now. I don't give a shit about the hypothetical hurt feelings of small town cops whining that they don't have always-on spy equipment.

In fact, there's a pretty strong argument that the reason crime has decreased so much in the US is because we've put strict controls and protections limiting lead in the environment.

We do still need deep societal focus, but that's mostly around things like further getting lead out of homes and pipes.

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

#136

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #36
b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how desperately that user is responding to every comment on this post, it seems they have a vested interest in playing blind for Flock, which makes me think they are paid by Flock.

Lol, I should be getting paid. But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people.

Manual D, the flock system is still very new. Why are you confident a private companies monetization of public whereabouts will stay legal? There hasent really been any precedent set on this. And the system is wildly unpopular In the public eye?

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

#137

Post by Intermernet »

cm2012 wrote: post #101
conception wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the police had the names and faces of every marcher in every protest. They too would be (are) 100% sold on the results.

Flock doesnt scan faces, only cars.

Flock provide more than LPRs. Check out the "Condor" cameras.

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

#138

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #32
devindotcom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.

The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.

>A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant.

I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?

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

#139

Post by seibelj »

eclipticplane wrote: post #63
ACCount37 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

Even with Flock, police aren't solving those crimes.

[dead]

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

#140

Post by declan_roberts »

thewebguyd wrote: post #66
ACCount37 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

Doesn't matter, they should have to follow the same process. Cops, at least where I live, don't give af about any of those crimes though. Bike gets stolen? You'll be lucky if they even show up at all, let alone do anything about it, surveillance data available or not. They largely don't even get prosecuted when caught.

It's true. We're getting the worst possible outcome. Police state surveillance that tolerates nearly every level of criminality. Anarcho-tyranny.
Post reply on HN