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

111–120 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#111

Post by undersuit »

bko wrote: post #77
whatjustin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Grant me the liberty to camp out on a public sidewalk and use hard drugs in a children's playground or give me death!

I think you should have the liberty to do both but there should be no reason for anyone to do so. Your two instances are happening because that's what available for them.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#112

Post by saghm »

jchw wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? I think that's a fair question for each local jurisdiction to make on its own.

Hmm. Personally, I disagree; I'd prefer to outlaw it explicitly. That's just my opinion, but I think that regulation has failed to keep up with the pace of technology and we've essentially lost the effect of some constitutional protections.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that it makes sense to wait to address the immediate issue of a private company centralizing the surveillance until there's sufficient political will for that (which realistically might not ever happen).

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#113

Post by etdznots »

bko wrote: post #23
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 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.

Lol, what totalitarian nightmare do we live in that this is your standard for acceptability when it comes to mass surveillance. “Well fellas, atleast we know whats happening and look here’s the name of the guy in charge, I mean how bad it could be?”

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#114

Post by gxs »

etdznots wrote: post #96

The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a…

I didn’t know this but it’s the kind of stuff our tax dollars pay for and ultimately why I’m so disgruntled about the high taxes we pay - especially in the middle class

No problem paying taxes - my entire gripe is with what what the moneys spent on

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#116

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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?

Any number of companies sell cameras and recorders both on-premise and cloud stored which are managed entirely by the customer. Most security cameras you see on any given building work this way, and most such camera systems also support features like LPR (license plate recognition). Most of the time you're on your own to sort out connectivity and power though.

What Flock is selling is the whole package: The hardware (including power, networking, and the pole), the software, the infrastructure, the logic design, the connectivity. For someone who doesn't want to operate and support a wide area network of IoT devices, you can see why "just give them money to watch your streets" looks appealing.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#117

Post by saghm »

bko wrote: post #23
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 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.

> The fact that anyone even knows the service and founder is a testament to accountability.

As opposed to their mayor/governor/president, who they not only can easily find out who it is if they don't already, but can also vote out (and who often will have term limits)?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#118

Post by etdznots »

bko wrote: post #72
chaps wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing about the CEO of a company is the lowest bar for, "testament to accountability" I've ever seen.

You have someone in charge. You know who to question. You can even spam him on social media and a decent chance he'll reply. Try to get something out of the CEO of Bank of America or some other faceless corporation

Yes guys if you don’t like flock please please please just send a dm to the ceo with your social media account, or you can send him a letter in the mail, just dont send some anonymous crap he doesnt like that just use your real name and address or your social media handle and just go ahead and send him a message and let him know how ya feel. Flock loves to know how it’s customers are feeling, and will definitely keep a ticket open for any unsatisfied customers with your name and how to contact you so they can fix it.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#119

Post by hack1312 »

ses1984 wrote: post #74
ajmurmann wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Police actually exist to protect capital. At least in the USA.

When you get robbed who else are you going to call when you need someone to show up 7 hours later and shrug their shoulders.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#120

Post by smalltorch »

etdznots wrote: post #96

The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a…

Yeah it's kinda crazy you can't legally take them down even if they are banned/contract expires. IKE Skelton, a county commissioner took it into his own hands and they were pressing felony charges on him. Not sure what ended up happening. Basically flock wouldn't respond to take them down, he felt it was his duty to remove them, he brought them back to his office, and then the state hunted him down.

Here is a podcast about it. https://internationalflavor.podbean.com/e/the-surveillance-s...

Post reply on HN