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

321–330 of 354 posts

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

#321

Post by Manuel_D »

eightysixfour wrote: post #290
Manuel_D wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the things that is really interesting to me is when people don't update their opinions of some thing when the level of difficulty and cost associated with that thing change. A few decades ago, if a police officer wanted to find the whereabouts of some individual, they would have to do some serious leg work, even with ALPRs, potentially watch many hours of videos, etc. With Flock that can be reduced to a mere s…

> A few decades ago, if a police officer wanted to find the whereabouts of some individual, they would have to do some serious leg work, even with ALPRs, potentially watch many hours of videos, etc.

The whole point about ALPRs is that the license plate reading is automatic. Even during the 90s, all a police officer had to do was query a database.

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

#322

Post by Manuel_D »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #286
Manuel_D wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the basis for the claim that Flock was the first nation-wide ALPR aggregator? The source mentions that Flock aggregated data on a national level, but doesn't say that it was the first to do so. In fact it doesn't really offer any tangible thing that differentiates this from the decades old systems that predate flock. It's more like trucks are have been mining gravel from this pit for decades, and the courts h…

I never claimed flock was the first - you just invented that whole cloth. It also entirely misses the point I just made (intentionally I think). Different degrees of the same thing can and should be treated differently. I am not singling out flock here. I am merely observing that a given behavior having been deemed legal or constitutionally protected in one context does not necessarily translate over to another. Your…

> The publicized flock examples make clear that the nature and scope of the queries that can be run against modern systems are far beyond what was possible in the 90s

Then how is "the nature and scope" of Flock different? You didn't actually bother to explain what you meant here. In your earlier comment you emphasized that flock's aggregation is nationwide, which is why I was under the impression that is what you were referring to.

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

#323

Post by Manuel_D »

abalashov wrote: post #287
Manuel_D wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, at least in the US you can record people in public pretty much at any time.

Yes, but I'm not sure you can catalog all the features of the people you recorded and compile this into a real-time database that can be queried with relatively little oversight. I'm not a legal expert, but I suspect there would be both invasion of privacy (if private) and warrantless search/4th amendment/civil rights concerns (if law enforcement) concerns.

But nobody is being searched, and nobody is being recorded in private. The police and other organizations are observing what is plainly in public view.

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

#324

Post by eightysixfour »

Manuel_D wrote: post #321
eightysixfour wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that is really interesting to me is when people don't update their opinions of some thing when the level of difficulty and cost associated with that thing change. A few decades ago, if a police officer wanted to find the whereabouts of some individual, they would have to do some serious leg work, even with ALPRs, potentially watch many hours of videos, etc. With Flock that can be reduced to a mere s…

> A few decades ago, if a police officer wanted to find the whereabouts of some individual, they would have to do some serious leg work, even with ALPRs, potentially watch many hours of videos, etc. The whole point about ALPRs is that the license plate reading is automatic . Even during the 90s, all a police officer had to do was query a database.

In the US, up until the mid to late 2000s, the majority of ALPRs were mounted on the police cruisers. Even when they moved on to installing them in fixed locations, they had two major limitations:

• There were few of them

• The databases were managed by the jurisdiction

To my exact point, by increasing the number of readers and SaaS-ifying the process to enable jurisdictions to opt-in to information sharing, you have meaningfully changed what the technology is capable of and how it can be used.

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

#325

Post by boelboel »

hosteur wrote: post #312
boelboel wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about reducing crime but most American police departments have difficulty finding staff. Generally boring job in most places and not really liked in other places (status loss). Speeding things up is one of the ways to deal with it.

> Speeding things up is one of the ways to deal with it. Making it a well-paid, high status job is another way to deal with it. Not easy. Not cheap. Involves fixing quite a few incentive structures as well and weeding out corruption... Yeah, I guess you're right, speeding things up a bit at the cost of everyone's privacy and liberties is going to be what they go for.

Yeah I realised the same at some point, most people don't care anyway and we don't really have privacy regardless.

There's no salary you can pay that attracts smart enough people to these jobs in some places (while being fiscally somewhat responsible). It's similar to the problem with doctors in rural areas where wages don't matter.

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

#326

Post by iberator »

arjie wrote: post #65
righthand wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all lies. Small towns have notiriously higher crime rates than Nyc. We should send the National Guard to your small town and place cameras every where. I dont feel safe in your small town. I moved away from middle America that’s swamped in meth, high murder rate, and racism. Sorry someone spilled a coca-cola though. Your pearls must be powder in your hands by now.

His small town? Tallinn is comparatively tiny to NYC admittedly but Dubai is a fairly large and urban city. I think that it doesn’t quite fit the appellation.

Tallinn might be smaller but it's the capital - so centre of organized crime and money. this does matter in terms of safety

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

#327

Post by afpx »

tptacek wrote: post #320
afpx wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean as a passive observer it’s a little weird. You’re HN celebrity, aren’t you? It’s definitely an anomaly

I don't believe you know anything about me, but do go on.

You’ve been an ‘influencer’ here for 25 years. Why so defensive?

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

#328

Post by sublinear »

abalashov wrote: post #308
sublinear wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also wonder what makes people think the cops are going to trust AI any more than anyone else. A mistake on bad information is even more dangerous for them and often makes national news.

Judging by the number of news stories in which they have done just that, they will happily trust AI. A certain relatively small percentage will generate national news and that kind of blowback, but by and large, they have the guns, the SWAT teams, and the local prosecutors, and the consequences are minimal.

How do you know what a "relative small percentage" is if there are alleged unreported incidents? What would even allow anything to go unreported vs just ignored (because nobody cares)? Why would having a large capability to respond with force be relevant to whether the cops are going to listen to the slop machine?

I'm trying to understand what makes you so sure of your opinion. Unless you're living in a third-world country, from the perspective of anyone who has barely even known a cop, this sounds wildly out of touch. There already is a ton scrutiny on everything they do. Picking apart the long tail of debatable outcomes you don't like is not evidence of corruption. Corruption would be no debate at all.

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

#329

Post by tptacek »

afpx wrote: post #327
tptacek wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you know anything about me, but do go on.

You’ve been an ‘influencer’ here for 25 years. Why so defensive?

I don't feel defensive but that is kind of a weird question for you in particular to ask, isn't it?

(This site has not existed for 25 years.)

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

#330

Post by antonvs »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #318
antonvs wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim was "a lot of tasks", which is certainly true. It wasn't "all tasks".

This point is moot, though. The claim either implicitly includes the task under discussion or it's a non sequitur.

An LLM could certainly write you an OpenCV program to do this task. I’ve used them for exactly that kind of work. The moot non sequitur is yours.
Post reply on HN