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

LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#21

Post by someperson »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
someperson wrote: post #8

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.

A better designed system could be driven by warrants issued by courts, without (or at least minimal) access to individual officers.

It requires better access controls.

Even invasive ideas like automated license plate scanning city-wide can have its data only accessible to an API to eg, track a stolen car across the city to avoid a dangerous high-speed chase in populated areas.

I think to throw the baby out with the bathwater around networked security cameras is failure around designing robust and secure APIs and systems (including audit trails).

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#22

Post by MengerSponge »

buzer wrote: post #6
superkuh wrote: post #3

This is good. But unfortunately it doesn't mean the Flock cameras will be removed because the city doesn't own them. Flock does. And Flock will likely want to keep them there. In other cities when the contract is canceled or let expire Flock prevented those cities from removing the cameras. Some had to resort to covering them with trash bags because they could not legally remove them. This happened in Dayton, Ohio an…

Aren't the cameras on city's land or did city lease the land to Flock? If they are on city's land couldn't city require that Flock removes their stuff from city's property or city will do it on Flock's expense?

I've seen videos of flock cameras installed improperly (missing a breakaway device) right next to roads. The city must be able to remove unsafe devices!

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/local-rural/maintenance-sign...

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#23

Post by bko »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
someperson wrote: post #8

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.

I think Flock is probably the worst solution besides all the rest. They seem to be the most auditable and accountable. The fact that anyone even knows the service and founder is a testament to accountability.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#24

Post by [deleted] »

moate wrote: post #18
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[deleted]

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#25

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
someperson wrote: post #8

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.

> Why would you trust the city more than Flock

Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned database.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#26

Post by bko »

superkuh wrote: post #3

This is good. But unfortunately it doesn't mean the Flock cameras will be removed because the city doesn't own them. Flock does. And Flock will likely want to keep them there. In other cities when the contract is canceled or let expire Flock prevented those cities from removing the cameras. Some had to resort to covering them with trash bags because they could not legally remove them. This happened in Dayton, Ohio an…

I don't know, I'd prefer cops have access to technology that helps them apprehend criminals and enforce the law. Better audits and accountability are the solution, not removing technology.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#27

Post by throwaway894345 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
SoftTalker wrote: post #9

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.

> Why would you trust the city more than Flock Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned database.

Agreed, and more than that, those siloes are governed by democratic processes. Of course, democracy doesn't preclude abuse but it's a lot better than private governance.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#28

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

someperson wrote: post #21
SoftTalker wrote: post #9

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.

A better designed system could be driven by warrants issued by courts, without (or at least minimal) access to individual officers. It requires better access controls. Even invasive ideas like automated license plate scanning city-wide can have its data only accessible to an API to eg, track a stolen car across the city to avoid a dangerous high-speed chase in populated areas. I think to throw the baby out with the b…

Or… hear me out… no surveillance system at all.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#29

Post by cucumber3732842 »

moate wrote: post #18
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Said by someone who's clearly never tangled with civil enforcement.

Nearly your rights go out the window when it's non-criminal prosecution. The organizations also aren't nearly as robustly structured to limit damage by "bad apples" as real police departments are.

I know this sounds insane in light of how bad the cops are. That's because it is. Civil enforcement is essentially 50yr behind policing when it comes to transparency and accountability.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#30

Post by sandeepkd »

SoftTalker wrote: post #9
someperson wrote: post #8

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 not who owns the data

The one who owns the data is the one who should be responsible to provide proper guardrails in certain cases if not all, specially like these ones. It comes down to the fine line around business, rules and regulations. The motivation of business is to make most profit with least cost and implementing regulatory mechanisms are cost. Abuses are natural to happen in the absence of guardrails and audits.

Post reply on HN