Regular reminder that their CEO called Deflock a terrorist organization. I hope they go out of business and their cameras end up as e-waste.
If I'm a terrorist, I've not been a very good one to this point.
Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
151–160 of 382 posts
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been. That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence. Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a…
The ballots are timestamped to a degree fine-grained enough to narrow down the set of potential voters to just 50 people? Which state is this? I'm not finding any search results indicating that ballots are timestamped. In fact, some of the results I've encountered specifically say that ballots aren't timestamped to ensure privacy. But happy to learn more of you can explain how ballots in your state are timestamped.
In my state, we have to sign our name on the envelope containing our ballot. If the government was corrupt and they wanted to identify how people voted, they could just look at the signature. No Flock required.
Of all the things to complain about Flock, the notion that it can somehow de-anonymize ballots is probably one of the most unusual I've heard.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would oppose a city setting up CCTV to be used the way Flock is used - that would be orders of magnitude less bad than Flock. As it is, you can assume that at the very least, every time your vehicle has passed one of the >100k Flock cameras, there's a database entry and a photo that will never, ever be deleted. Your full travel history from this point forward is available for a nominal fee, and without any re…
Who says the city's retention period would be smaller than Flock? Furthermore, do you realize that you're free to photograph people in public and sell those images, no permission required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by th…
"Anyone can record you at any time in public" is vastly different from "a single entity is recording you over time and locations across the country/state/city"
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#154This problem is 99% cops and 1% flock.
It's sort of 50/50.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would oppose a city setting up CCTV to be used the way Flock is used - that would be orders of magnitude less bad than Flock. As it is, you can assume that at the very least, every time your vehicle has passed one of the >100k Flock cameras, there's a database entry and a photo that will never, ever be deleted. Your full travel history from this point forward is available for a nominal fee, and without any re…
Who says the city's retention period would be smaller than Flock? Furthermore, do you realize that you're free to photograph people in public and sell those images, no permission required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by th…
> People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public.
Maybe this needs to be restricted in some capacity, then.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been. That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence. Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a…
The ballots are timestamped to a degree fine-grained enough to narrow down the set of potential voters to just 50 people? Which state is this? I'm not finding any search results indicating that ballots are timestamped. In fact, some of the results I've encountered specifically say that ballots aren't timestamped to ensure privacy. But happy to learn more of you can explain how ballots in your state are timestamped. I…
At no point did I say it could de-anonymize ballots.
You claimed ballots provided the government with the information they needed to know who voted.
I pointed that is untrue. Ballots explicitly do not.
The fact you posted that tells you know have a Google level understanding of the law in the US, and the fact you posted an article about private citizens using public data as proof of the legality of government-operated mass surveillance data tells me you're a deeply unserious person who should probably read Robert's writing in the majority opinion in Carpenter.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says the city's retention period would be smaller than Flock? Furthermore, do you realize that you're free to photograph people in public and sell those images, no permission required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by th…
> People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. Maybe this needs to be restricted in some capacity, then.
[deleted]
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#158This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever.
Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking.
Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as this article exemplifies. Secondly, because it demonstrates terrible judgment; it seems reasonable to assume they are likely to make other terrible decisions in the future.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been. That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence. Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a…
The ballots are timestamped to a degree fine-grained enough to narrow down the set of potential voters to just 50 people? Which state is this? I'm not finding any search results indicating that ballots are timestamped. In fact, some of the results I've encountered specifically say that ballots aren't timestamped to ensure privacy. But happy to learn more of you can explain how ballots in your state are timestamped. I…
My point wasn't that Flock allows this, but that it allows an entire class of surveillance that was previously not available.
Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would oppose a city setting up CCTV to be used the way Flock is used - that would be orders of magnitude less bad than Flock. As it is, you can assume that at the very least, every time your vehicle has passed one of the >100k Flock cameras, there's a database entry and a photo that will never, ever be deleted. Your full travel history from this point forward is available for a nominal fee, and without any re…
Who says the city's retention period would be smaller than Flock? Furthermore, do you realize that you're free to photograph people in public and sell those images, no permission required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by th…
The city's scope is smaller than Flock's - it's a city, not a multi-national corporation.
Yes, I'm aware of what "expectation of privacy" means. I've been a photographer for ~25 years.
> People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by the government or another private person.
This isn't about recording in public - it's about building a comprehensive dataset containing the movement and association history of the entire US population. Not only is that without a warrant, it's being collected prior to any accusation being made.