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

291–300 of 354 posts

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

#291

Post by mmooss »

tptacek wrote: post #254
chaps wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're matching specific descriptions of cars to incidents, like, "this vehicle has been present at the site of 5 previous package thefts". You're hand-waving a hell of a lot of things away and you expect that everyone knows what you're talking about. Please stop doing that. - Who is "They"? - Why do you say "nobody has time for that"? What is "that"? - Why are you dismissing genuine concerns through unhelpful langu…

Hey, Chaps! Sorry, I write the way I write. "They" are public bodies operating ALPR devices; in the main, municipal police forces, though obviously other public bodies (like the Illinois State Police) operate them as well. The antecedent of the first "that" was "the use of cameras to detect cars with politically disfavored bumper stickers". I am, yes, dismissing the concern that ALPRs are being used to detect cars wi…

My common experience is that people dismiss these risks without evidence, while I've seen plenty of stories of such things happening in this context and in others. Possibly those stories add up to a lot of anecdotes, but these aren't arguments based on reason or evidence:

> easily dismissible movie-plot concerns

> implausible risks

Those are just words. People who use them, IME, imply their conclusions are already well-established. But they never are. Where is the evidence and argument for these claims?

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

#292

Post by tomhow »

naturalmovement wrote: post #118
righthand wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bail reform propaganda. If you feel unsafe because we dont put deoderant thieves in Rikers then move.

[flagged]

Can you please stop commenting in this inflammatory style? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#293

Post by antonvs »

maccard wrote: post #231
handoflixue wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were able to write one 20 years ago, I dare say an LLM could whip one up super-fast. Or just search the internet and tell you where to find one. One of the risks of LLMs is that a lot of tasks go from "an expert could do this easily given a few weeks" to "anyone who thinks to ask an LLM can do this easily and get results the same day"

> One of the risks of LLMs is that a lot of tasks go from "an expert could do this easily given a few weeks" to "anyone who thinks to ask an LLM can do this easily and get results the same day" By that logic, all problems are solved with LLMs, though.

The claim was "a lot of tasks", which is certainly true.

It wasn't "all tasks".

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

#295

Post by antonvs »

microgpt wrote: post #265
neilv wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police where I live are generally good, and I imagine that's the case many places. Treating police as the enemy, or a punching bag, is unfair and counterproductive. (I can't speak to any places that might have a lot of corruption or ill intent.) Places that aren't too corrupt, you'd be better off encouraging a partnership among citizens, police, lawmakers, and other officials. Which is how it's supposed to be. Ev…

This wouldn't treat them as the enemy. We'd just track everywhere they go, for their safety. Really, we'd be helping them.

Right. After all, surely they have nothing to hide?

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

#296

Post by antonvs »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #173
afh1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be no expectation of privacy in the sense someone may see you and take your picture. There is an expectation you are not constantly tracked everywhere you go by a nationwide surveillance apparatus, that your location is not constantly monitored, indexed and shared. Unless you expect to live in an Orwellian distopia.

And what happens to you? Has something happened to you? Or anyone you know who wasn't involved in something illegal?

The have been cases of police harassing and stalking people using Flock cameras. Just because it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it's not a real issue.

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

#297

Post by nailer »

righthand wrote: post #260
nailer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's describing someone so stoned out of their mind they don't know how to drink a soda. I feel most people would read his comment and understand that.

And that isnt a crime. It’s a strawman trying to say it’s a crime.

It is illegal under NY Penal Law § 240.40 to appear in public under the influence of narcotics or other drugs (to the degree that you may endanger yourself/others/property or annoy people nearby). This is a violation (not a crime/misdemeanor), punishable by up to 15 days in jail and a fine of up to $250.

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

#298

Post by nailer »

sarchertech wrote: post #255
nailer wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point re: Paris is that most cities would look better when compared to Paris on safety. > Only London and NY reach the Alpha++ world city designation. As someone that's spent the last two decades living in both, it's a little bit of past glory. Miami is more ambitious, Lisbon is where smart international companies go. London still has great universities but they're lessened and capital goes elsewhere.

> Miami is more ambitious My wife grew up there, and I worked for a company based there for years, and I can’t really even come up with a good educated guess for that that means. You could argue that London is past its prime, but you could have made that argument 75 years ago. It still retains its alpha++ designation and it’s the top ranking in the global financial centers index. But regardless neither Lisbon nor Mia…

It means more people in Miami are likely to be starting businesses than people here in NYC are. I’m surprised you couldn’t come up with a guess about that.

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

#299

Post by deaux »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #172
sublinear wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have stats, but most police have made it pretty clear that they're used for investigations that would otherwise have very little to go on. I don't think anyone other than the manufacturers have made claims of cameras reducing crime. You can put all the AI bells and whistles on them, but they're still just cameras. They're a fallback option, not a dragnet. The police are generally reactive to reports of crime,…

You are absolutely correct but you won't get anywhere here. I have relatives who are cops and lawyers and city councilmen. No cop is sitting in a back room somewhere tracking all the cars on every street trying to do, uh, whatever it is people here are claiming they are going to do to them.

Except for of course, the more than a dozen known cases where cops have been using Flock to stalk people [0]. Realistically, it's very likely that most of these cases do not become known.

[0] https://www.404media.co/cops-keep-getting-arrested-for-using...

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

#300

Post by deaux »

sublinear wrote: post #116
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #97

Can anybody find trustworthy stats that these actually reduce crime? All I see are occasional anecdotes about how they were used to find one person one time. Skeptical me seriously doubts this is an effective solution for crime. But maybe that's because this country has a history of being willing to do a million expensive and privacy violating things, and only if it's a punitive measure.

I don't have stats, but most police have made it pretty clear that they're used for investigations that would otherwise have very little to go on. I don't think anyone other than the manufacturers have made claims of cameras reducing crime. You can put all the AI bells and whistles on them, but they're still just cameras. They're a fallback option, not a dragnet. The police are generally reactive to reports of crime,…

There's clearly another vocal camp that's eroding HN: surveillance capitalists acting like everything's well and good, in the face of evidence that the opposite is widespread [0].

[0] https://www.404media.co/cops-keep-getting-arrested-for-using...

Post reply on HN