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

Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 354 posts

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#191

Post by randusername »

crises-luff-6b wrote: post #72

There is no expectation of privacy in public. It's really that simple.

Of course there is.

You can take notice of beautiful women in public. You cannot take upskirt photos.

You can eavesdrop on a conversation at the park. You cannot put mics under all the benches.

Privacy is a situational continuum of invasiveness. Just because there is no expectation of privacy from the state in using public roads does not mean we should tolerate corporations building profiles analyzing the comings and goings of citizens.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#192

Post by dw_arthur »

Manuel_D wrote: post #183
aquir wrote: post #27

I don't get why any of these devices are still intact...

Because most of the American public is not as reflexively anti-Flock as HN would lead you to believe. People acting like cameras recording their activities in public is some sort of grave privacy violation are not the norm. Cameras recording tour activity in malls, and on public roads has been the case since the 90s. Flock became a lightning rod of attention due to ICE, but they don't actually represent any change fr…

A camera in 2026 is not the camera of 1996. Cameras today are connected to active and passive monitoring systems which are much more invasive to privacy. What will a camera be able to do in 2036?

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#193

Post by Manuel_D »

dev1ycan wrote: post #71

If a certain group of people think that it should be their right to take others rights away and turn society into a dystopia for perceived security, then for the same reason it should be other individuals rights to assert that their rights should be protected by taking the first group's rights away to install or do whatever they think they can do for convenience/security's sake. This includes "ancestry tests", securi…

What right is being taken away? Nobody ever had the right to not be recorded in public.

Furthermore surveillance isn't just an all or nothing thing. For example, the government can record your activities in public without a warrant, but they can't subpoena your phone calls without a warrant. That degree of surveillance has more checks and balances.

How you somehow try to go from recording people in public to "ancestry tests" is a pretty nonsensical argument.

> And since we "supposedly" live in a democracy, we should be allowed to have a vote to decide on this, the group that wins is the majority, right?

No, you'd have to win much more than the majority to change the constitution, which defines a lot of privacy rights. But if you have enough votes, then sure you could change the constitution.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#194

Post by infecto »

arjie wrote: post #177
infecto wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not claiming “Taiwan is extremely racist, therefore low crime.” I’m saying cohesive societies often have stronger in-group preferences and social expectations than Americans tend to recognize, and those coexist with being welcoming to many foreigners. Your experience and your relative’s experience are perfectly compatible with that. One or two positive anecdotes don’t tell u…

I understand what you're saying but it seems like a complete non-sequitur given the context of the conversation, which I'll reproduce here in threaded fashion in case it's not visible in your client. > > > We need some way to address the low level crime in the US. If you look at cities in east Asia, they're both much larger than typical US cities and much safer. It -is- possible to have safe large cities. The fact th…

> Though I suppose we can both interpose unrelated facts into the conversation and claim contextual irrelevance in the motte and bailey style. Here are a few I present for discussion: 2 + 2 = 4 The sky is blue

The “motte and bailey” accusation followed immediately by schoolyard sarcasm is an odd combination. If you’re going to accuse someone of rhetorical gamesmanship, it’s probably better not to end with rhetorical flourish instead of argument.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#195

Post by Manuel_D »

dw_arthur wrote: post #192
Manuel_D wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most of the American public is not as reflexively anti-Flock as HN would lead you to believe. People acting like cameras recording their activities in public is some sort of grave privacy violation are not the norm. Cameras recording tour activity in malls, and on public roads has been the case since the 90s. Flock became a lightning rod of attention due to ICE, but they don't actually represent any change fr…

A camera in 2026 is not the camera of 1996. Cameras today are connected to active and passive monitoring systems which are much more invasive to privacy. What will a camera be able to do in 2036?

To the contrary, cameras have been able to automatically read license plates since the 70s, and the technology became cheaper and more widely deployed in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...

At the end of the day, a camera in public can only record images of people in public. That does not and never did require a warrant.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#196

Post by randusername »

Cider9986 wrote: post #105

They're also getting banned fast. The city level should be the most accessible government for change. There's been over 70[1] documented wins. Don't feel like this is a lost cause, it clearly isn't. If everyone who was going to comment on this thread instead or additionally got involved by going to a city council meeting and explaining the problems to friends/family, many more cities could reject them. [1] https://de…

We had success in our county and town canceling contracts, but that doesn't mean they are banned from private land.

I'm not totally sure, but it may even be the stupidest of all possible outcomes: they still exist, the cops can't access them, and their only value is selling private information.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#197

Post by thechao »

lesuorac wrote: post #138
thechao wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, and why corporations should have their rights explicitly curtailed: they're not citizens or the people.

I'm really unconvinced gerrymandering is the issue here. It's not like Red cities have flock cameras and Blue cities don't. It's really just that the Fairness Doctrine [1] needed to apply to more than radio. If you can constantly just repeat your point and then deny an opposition time then of course you'll get your point through. Although maybe if super-pacs got outlawed then the Equal-time rule [2] would suffice. [1…

Races are virtually uncompetitive; it means politicians only need to pander to the 40% bloc of the 10–20% of voters that show up in the primary. Once elected, the chance of losing their office is nearly 0. Gerrymandering absolutely reduces effective voting power. That's the whole point.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#198

Post by KennyBlanken »

tptacek wrote: post #171
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #2

Yeah, I'm not a fan of these things. If they were just ALPRs, I could probably give them a bit of slack -if they tightened up their security-, but all the other stuff they do, makes them pretty much untenable. However: > This makes AI powered cameras like Flock's distinct from traditional surveillance or traffic cams, which require someone to manually look over footage in order to find a specific vehicle or individua…

That's interesting, because the ALPR part of Flock is what caused all the problems here; the rest of it, of characterizing vehicles with attributes beyond just plates, wasn't really problematic at all.

Characterizing vehicles based on stickers (which easily can indicate political leanings) is absolutely problematic. It's just not considered problematic by conservatives, given police in the US are overwhelmingly conservative.

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#199

Post by infecto »

kennywinker wrote: post #129
infecto wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine what I really meant was that in those areas people largely approve of these cameras and it’s the minority that don’t. Now of course your narrative is rude and more entertaining but sadly far from the mark. Saying “that’s not what I paid for” is all fine and dandy but it’s cuts both ways.

> in those areas people largely approve of these cameras How sure of that are you? I’m thinking it’s mostly a mix of indifference and ignorance. Has anywhere you know of voted specifically on these cameras?

[flagged]

Re: Flock cameras track more than your license plate, and they're spreading fast

#200

Post by infecto »

goatlover wrote: post #155
infecto wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine what I really meant was that in those areas people largely approve of these cameras and it’s the minority that don’t. Now of course your narrative is rude and more entertaining but sadly far from the mark. Saying “that’s not what I paid for” is all fine and dandy but it’s cuts both ways.

Alright, but in those areas did the politicians run on having those cameras installed everywhere? Were the voters given a proposition to approve? Data centers seem to be widely unpopular on both the left and right, so I'm wonder where the representative democracy comes into play. More often than not local politicians approve these projects despite there being majority opposition from the public.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN