Live data from Hacker News

LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

techcrunch.com

11–20 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#11

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

I'd say most are hosted first, Milestone, Genetec, Avigilon, etc. They all sell software to host feeds from your own standardized cams (Axis, Hanwah, Samsung, etc) via h.264/mpeg. The cloud hosted CCTV at scale is relatively recent.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#12

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

Because there's a more robust legal framework for curtailing the inevitable abuse when the government does it than when it's done via the "oops our contractor who's a private company" slight of hand.

Same basic reason I'd rather have the cops after me than have the environmental/zoning/whatever civil enforcement jerks after me. There's just sooooo much more scrutiny (which really says a lot considering how bad the cops are).

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#13

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

flock shares the data with other cities and jurisdictions a little more easily, and also flock workers can see your videos. That's some amount of extra abuse potential?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#14
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the license to surveil the city is extended to flock by the city? Presumably they should be able to compel them to disable them, and provide proof of this (whether they’re trusted or not…)

I think the problem is that people are allowed to set up cameras of public spaces without requiring any “license to surveil”.

I assure you that if I slapped a camera on city infrastructure they would absolutely find some license or permission that I don't have and threaten me with a million+ dollar fine over it.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#15

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

The problem with Flock is its continued existence as part of the surveillance state. Like guns or bombs, these are things with one intent, and that intent is always ALWAYS bad as the resource is inevitably concentrated in the hands of a few to control the many.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#16

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

Also, there's plenty of past incidents of cops abusing their access to state and federal databases for the same kinds of purposes.

The profession attracts individuals who are willing to abuse power for their own purposes. That's not to say that every cop is in the job to abuse power, but many are, and we have to build our law enforcement structures in a way that directly acknowledges and addresses this fact.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#17
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the license to surveil the city is extended to flock by the city? Presumably they should be able to compel them to disable them, and provide proof of this (whether they’re trusted or not…)

I think the problem is that people are allowed to set up cameras of public spaces without requiring any “license to surveil”.

are they on land flock owns though? I don't think I could go put up a camera on city infrastructure like traffic lights without their permission. does flock buy a lot of little permissions to install and power their cameras or something?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

Because there's a more robust legal framework for curtailing the inevitable abuse when the government does it than when it's done via the "oops our contractor who's a private company" slight of hand. Same basic reason I'd rather have the cops after me than have the environmental/zoning/whatever civil enforcement jerks after me. There's just sooooo much more scrutiny (which really says a lot considering how bad the co…

Said by someone who's clearly never had cops after them...

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#19

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

Have you seen Flock's CEO?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.

Also, there's plenty of past incidents of cops abusing their access to state and federal databases for the same kinds of purposes. The profession attracts individuals who are willing to abuse power for their own purposes. That's not to say that every cop is in the job to abuse power, but many are, and we have to build our law enforcement structures in a way that directly acknowledges and addresses this fact.

As the saying goes: A few bad apples spoil the bunch. It's a rotten profession.
Post reply on HN