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

151–160 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#151

Post by goobatrooba »

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.

Cameras don't prevent crime, they just increase the cost of doing so (or the cost of preparing for it).

Most crime is spontaneous. Plenty of examples from across the world that installing cameras or other checks at best shifts crime to other areas.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#152

Post by dwrodri »

dude741 wrote: post #143

[flagged]

Something of consideration: Flock cameras were installed after discussions across the HOA and local police department, after a multiple crimes happened in an area. So long as a discussion about the lifetime of the cameras is raised eventually, this sounds like a measured and reasonable use of surveillance.

There is still something to be said about the lack of alignment between Flock the company and the HOA as to how that data is used, but the compromise was explicit, and there was at least some coordination within the community. At the heart of the issue with automatic surveillance is the lack of accountability over those who retain the data and the lack of consent of those surveilled, and measures were taken to address one of those two within your community.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#154

Post by bflesch »

copper-float wrote: post #137
AlexErrant wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My man, if your comments can't be distinguished from a bot's, you're no better than one. Also if you can't tell that your comment's unsubstantiated bait, you really need to go touch grass. Everyone has an annecdote. "it's common enough to be recognized as a trend" is equally justification for racial profiling, and at least racial crime statistics are easily citable. And you still haven't even put forth that modicum o…

Hi Alex, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never once suggested racial profiling as acceptable, and I wasn't insinuating it either. I know you were just using it as an adjacent example, but I don't appreciate that. I'm just giving my experiences man, I lived in Los Angeles for years. Have you ever been here or lived here? There is very little respect for the law because the law is not enforce…

The way you're using the word "liberal" is technically wrong and your comment was basically a cheap fox news talking point aimed at below-average TV viewers.

It's totally fine if those talking points resonate with you, but it makes me sad that you don't have the mental capability to actually think about what the career path of a judge entails, what kind of room for decision making they have, and what kind of trade-offs they might need to consider in order to adjust the punishments.

Ignorance is bliss.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#155

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bars on windows and cages on retail goods, gated driveways, armed security at anything of importance, etc, etc, are a heck of a lot cheaper in the long run than a 1984 police state.

Maybe enforced small theft laws and shared cultural values… you know… what worked FOREVER…

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#156

Post by AlexErrant »

copper-float wrote: post #137
AlexErrant wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My man, if your comments can't be distinguished from a bot's, you're no better than one. Also if you can't tell that your comment's unsubstantiated bait, you really need to go touch grass. Everyone has an annecdote. "it's common enough to be recognized as a trend" is equally justification for racial profiling, and at least racial crime statistics are easily citable. And you still haven't even put forth that modicum o…

Hi Alex, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never once suggested racial profiling as acceptable, and I wasn't insinuating it either. I know you were just using it as an adjacent example, but I don't appreciate that. I'm just giving my experiences man, I lived in Los Angeles for years. Have you ever been here or lived here? There is very little respect for the law because the law is not enforce…

No one is saying you can't have an opinion and you can't express it.

I'm just saying there's a predictable result when you express it with the level of detail and amount of effort that you _did_. And frankly, your comments are no better than pre-reasoning era LLM rage-bait.

What level of engagement are you looking for here; support for your lack of citations, or "yeah that's also my personal experience rah rah"?

I'm having a meta-level discussion, if you can't tell. I'm not "putting words in your mouth", I'm trying to discuss: the quality of your discussion. I'm discussing the quality of your arguments and your evidence. If you think that "racial profiling" is too hot, substitute in something else; that's not the point.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#158

Post by llm_nerd »

dude741 wrote: post #143

[flagged]

This is such a bizarre story, each detail more absurd and ridiculous than the last, that I can't believe HN is falling for it.

Honestly there are a number of incredibly weird comments like this throughout the discussion. Is Flock astroturfing every discussion about the company?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#159

Post by dude741 »

mixdup wrote: post #149
dude741 wrote: post #143

[flagged]

There is a difference between this situation, a targeted install in a problem situation, and hundreds of thousands of these cameras at every intersection in the country Also, Flock cameras are not just on roads. Many institutions use them for surveillance inside buildings. There is a community center in Atlanta that has them and there is evidence that random people with access to all Atlanta area cameras, including F…

I agree with you; I don't want a surveillance state either but I understand why people install them in their neighborhoods

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#160

Post by [deleted] »

bflesch wrote: post #154
copper-float wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Alex, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never once suggested racial profiling as acceptable, and I wasn't insinuating it either. I know you were just using it as an adjacent example, but I don't appreciate that. I'm just giving my experiences man, I lived in Los Angeles for years. Have you ever been here or lived here? There is very little respect for the law because the law is not enforce…

The way you're using the word "liberal" is technically wrong and your comment was basically a cheap fox news talking point aimed at below-average TV viewers. It's totally fine if those talking points resonate with you, but it makes me sad that you don't have the mental capability to actually think about what the career path of a judge entails, what kind of room for decision making they have, and what kind of trade-of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN