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

41–50 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#41

Post by whatjustin »

bko wrote: post #26
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.

> I'm cool with zero privacy if it means cops can arrest people more easily since they have perfect judgement

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#42

Post by vablings »

er4hn wrote: post #39
sandeepkd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The purchasers of the cameras, ie HOAs, law enforcement, etc, own the data. They are also the ones routinely caught abusing this. This is a real problem that should be dealt with by enforcing laws against the people improperly using the data. I'm not sure what a realistic solution is for Flock to try and manage data they do not own nor if it makes sense for them to deny access to data they are not the owners of.

This is false. the HOAs and LEOS have access to the data. Even if the contract specifies that the data is owned by these organizations, they are not the true owners.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#43

Post by macintux »

logancbrown wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The large distribution of silo'ed law enforcement across the US is one of the driving reasons why it can be so hard to solve crimes (murder, vehicular theft, etc). Once any crime has the potential to cross state or even jurisdiction lines, dealing with the inner-bureaucracy of crossed enforcement agencies adds days to weeks to solving urgent crimes. A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the…

> A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the data together is no better of a solution vs what we have today.

Unless you'd rather prioritize liberty over safety. I want crimes to be harder to solve if the alternative is a panopticon.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#44

Post by jchw »

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.

Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? Isn't the expansion of surveillance through increasing prevalence of technology already way too much? Police can real-time track almost anyone if they have a warrant as it is, thanks to the magic of modern cell phones. We didn't even have time to discuss whether that was a good status quo before it became normal. Are we really sure we want to expand this to a massive network of cameras?

I get that it helps solve crimes, but solving crime is not the end-all-be-all of improving society. If anything, it's a highly symptom-oriented solution, and we absolutely have plenty of levers we could be trying to pull if we wanted to prevent crime instead.

Forget whether one global surveillance network is more trustworthy than another global surveillance network for a minute. Do we want this at all?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#45

Post by ajmurmann »

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 wonder why we aren't addressing the real problem which seems to be cops behaving completely unethically. Their job is about enforcing the system that codifies our societies agreed up and codified rules of ethics. They should be obsessed with this the same way people here obsess over system performance, correctness, etc! If we cannot trust them with the very basics of ethical behavior they are absolutely in the wrong job and there need to be very clear consequences.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#46

Post by vablings »

8note wrote: post #36
bko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

while cops are impossible to hold accountable, id prefer to give them fewer capabilities rather than more

I don't think this is true. With the advent of body cameras, cellphones with cameras and FOIA requests you can build a good case if someone violates your rights. The bigger issues are that there is little to no consequence of a flagrant violation of rights because the police union is VERY protective over its members.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#47

Post by vablings »

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?

It's astonishing to me that the largest tech hubs in the world do not have the money to invest in developing a camera system that is sovereignly owned by the city. There are a lot of very talented engineers who would work on a project like this. Also simply putting a person in between the information would certainly reduce the profile for abuse with stalking and harassing people

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#48

Post by nickff »

ajmurmann wrote: post #45
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.

I wonder why we aren't addressing the real problem which seems to be cops behaving completely unethically. Their job is about enforcing the system that codifies our societies agreed up and codified rules of ethics. They should be obsessed with this the same way people here obsess over system performance, correctness, etc! If we cannot trust them with the very basics of ethical behavior they are absolutely in the wron…

It seems that making government union members accountable is an intractable problem in the current political landscape.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#49

Post by rekttrader »

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?

Can we normalize a healthy 4th amendment posture? It’s wild that the Peter Thiel “don’t tread on me” folks are so cool with a China like police state.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#50

Post by annoyingnoob »

bko wrote: post #26
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.

What is a dragnet? Why are dragnets illegal?

Flock is essentially a private loophole that creates a nationwide dragnet.

Post reply on HN