Live data from Hacker News

LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

techcrunch.com

161–170 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably? Would be easier to develop drones to rip off the solar panels.

Black spray paint is less effort

Paintballs are even better, environmentally and effort-wise.

Especially if the propellant tank is pressurized using a solar powered compressor.

(Theoretically, of course. I wouldn’t advocate destroying private property.)

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#162

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.

[deleted]

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#163

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…

Just out of curiosity: doesn't the US have any laws against private surveillance of public spaces? As a European I find this quite irritating (not saying we do not have problems as well with more and more cams installed and risks related to an increasing number of e.g. parking lot cams)

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#164
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's easy to say these anti-capitalistic platitudes, but do you really want to live in a society where the concept of private ownership is not supported by the state? Society is not starting at zero right now, it has developed for 10.000 years with many genocidal wars. As a result, 1% of the population has achieved generational wealth due to some sort of "value creation" by their ancestors. Through trial and error an…

It would be fine if they protected property rights if they also protected human rights.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#165
post #15

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.

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.

Garrett would acknowledge being inspired by Minority Report, ignoring the message of it as a cautionary tale. Hell, he's even said that to him, a false positive in Flock is better than a false negative, which is a hell of a hot take in our current climate.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#166
post #126
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution.

> they respond by refusing to work. That's a ~~problem~~ solution that, at this time, has no ~~solution~~ problem. If a police department reuses to accept accountability, and dig in their heels by refusing to work, "just" dissolve it. And while at it, half the calls could be handled by folks without guns. In practice that obviously would not go over well, people are too attached to the status quo. We just lack the po…

> half the calls could be handled by folks without guns

This can't be emphasized enough. A lot of enforcement and "civil order" work does not require guns, and in many cases (e.g., mental health crises), they're the wrong people to be engaged to resolve.

I think one of the biggest issues with policing is that they are supported by the "law and order" crowd, which is a euphemism for keeping "others" in their place.

I swear to god that "Defund the police" was an inside job to discredit police reform by turning it into an all or nothing proposition and that's not gonna fly.

Oakland CA has serious crime problems because there's "not enough" policing and a lot of people are emboldened to do all the crime they want because nobody's there to stop them. One of many articles on this: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-business-o...

I believe there are some fundamental changes to the system that could correct a lot of this:

1. End the War on Drugs. It's literally designed to create crime and it's low hanging fruit for cops to focus on rather than real crime.

2. Legalize and regulate sex work. Like drugs, this is a moral issue and by driving it underground it's designed to create more crime. Regulate and monitor the fuck out of it to minimize opportunities for sex trafficking. It's also a favored low-hanging fruit for cops to bust.

3. Use social workers for mental health emergencies and have the cops notified for possible backup

4. Invest in housing/mental health/rehab services and get the homeless off the streets

5. Revisit the legal system to avoid catch and release scenarios (though most of it is #1 and #2). If the cops are busting the same people over and over again that disincentives them to even bother

6. Fix qualified immunity and put some teeth into it. We should never simply take the officer's word for anything without some sort of proof (like leaving their body cams on).

7. Make the police self-insured backed by their pension fund. They have no skin in the game and municipalities pay out vast sums of money for the misdeeds of officers.

Easy peasy!

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#167
post #74

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.

Correct. There is no actual obligation to protect and to serve, according to SCOTUS.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#168

[flagged]

Do you need flock to do this for you, though? I have cameras around my property, and they catch everyone entering and leaving my subdivision. If the police need access to the recordings, they can get a court order or ask nicely. What I don't do, is share the feeds with everyone willy-nilly so the police can cast wide dragnets and do god-knows-what-else with the data.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#169
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any realistic road to having them outlawed nationwide? Eg, ignoring probabilities here, could a wildly successful grassroots program where it became an issue as politically salient as immigration or abortion eventually lead to legislation banning them?

Probably? Would be easier to develop drones to rip off the solar panels.

Hypothetically, of course, it would be even easier to just sneak up from behind and drop contractor bags over them.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately.

Id have to re-listen as well for all the details. But I think this is slightly different than the headline here.

In this case, the county voted for an ordinance banning them. Ike was threatened saying your going to be charged this is potentially state property, he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decided he will enforce the ordinance as the sheriff refused too.

He took them down brought them to his office. Then later 5 state officers (4 in plain clothing, one in uniform) were looking for him at his house. He brought them to the cameras and said here have them back.

Still got charged with theft somehow...

Moral of the story, that doesn't really sound like democracy to me. That sounds like kinda the opposite of democracy.

Anyway it's worth a listen if you have time. This isn't how these things should go and shows there is a little more than meets the eye here. Even if citizens perfectly execute democracy, these things may not budge. And there is a larger net of protection keeping these in place.

Post reply on HN